favor that he be driven to Meycauayan, Bulacan where he
G.R. No. 195196               July 13, 2015
took a jeepney to Monumento, and from there, he took a taxi
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
 bound home. When he was released, his brother-in-law Mike
vs.
 Adrian was also released.4
ESTANLY OCTA y BAS, Accused-Appellant.
The defense recounted a different set of facts, to wit:
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, CJ:
Before us is a Notice of Appeal1 dated 30 July 2010 from the
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2  dated 19 July 2010 in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03490, affirming the Decision3  dated 15
May 2008 in Criminal Case No. 04-224073 issued by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 48, Manila, convicting
accused-appellant Estanly Octa y Bas, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
a gun was poked at him then he was boarded inside the van.
As culled from the records, the prosecution's version is herein
quoted:
happened at Susano Road, Camarin, Caloocan City. He was
In the morning of September 25, 2003, around 6:40 A.M.,
Johnny Corpuz (Johnny) and Mike Adrian Batuigas (Mike
Adrian) were on board a Honda Civic Car colored silver with
Plate No. UPT 697 travelling on Buenos Aires St., Sampaloc,
Manila when their way was blocked by a Mitsubishi box type
Lancer car colored red-orange. The four (4) armed occupants
of the Lancer car alighted. Johnny did not open the door of
the Honda Civic car but one of the armed men fired his pistol
at the left window of the civic car, thus compelling Johnny to
open the locked door of the car. The armed men went inside
the car and Johnny was ordered to transfer at the back seat
at that time. Inside the car, Johnny was handcuffed,
blindfolded and was even boxed. The armed men asked for
the names and telephone numbers of his mother-in-law. The
armed men called his mother-in-law giving the information
that Johnny was in their custody and they would just meet
each other at a certain place. They travelled for a while and
then they stopped and Johnny was brought to a safehouse.
That on or about 6:40 a.m. of September 25, 2003, in the City
After Johnny and Mike were kidnapped, the kidnappers
communicated with Johnny’s wife Ana Marie Corpuz (Ana
Marie) giving the information that they have intheir custody
her husband Johnny and her brother Mike Adrian. Ana Marie
tried to confirm the kidnapping incident by talking to her
husband, who confirmed to his wife that he and Mike Adrian
were indeed kidnapped and they were in the custody of their
abductors. Ana Marie sought the assistance of the PACER
[Police AntiCrime and Emergency Response] and stayed in a
PACER safehouse located at P. Tuazon, Cubao, Quezon City.
During her stay, she had several communications with her
husband’s kidnappers. The latter started demanding the
amount of ₱20 million for the release of her husband and her
brother but the amount was considerably reduced up to the
time that Ana Marie was able to raise the amount of
₱538,000.00 which was accepted by the kidnappers.
Finally, on September 30, 2003 at 10PM, the kidnappers set
up the manner on how the ransom money would be delivered.
Ana Marie travelled to Quiapo Church, then to Quezon City
circle up to SM Fairview and to Robinsons Fairview. She was
made to stop at Red Lips Beer House and go to the nearby
Caltex Auto Supply where she would see a man wearing a red
cap and who would ask her "saan yong padala ni boss". She
was instructed to deliver the wrapped bundled ransom
money to the man wearing red cap. When she saw the man
with red cap, she was asked for the money. At first, she did
not give the money because she wanted to be sure that she
was giving the money to the right man. Using her own
cellphone, she called up the man who had been instructing
her all along and asked him to confirm if the man in front of
her is the right man to give the ransom money to, saying
"kausapin mo muna ito kung siya ba." The man in the phone
and the man in the red cap talked for a while in another
dialect which Ana Marie did not understand. When she asked
the man to give back her cellphone to her, he refused and,
instead instructed her to give the money to him. She
described the man wearing red cap to be goodlooking, lightly
built, in his early 20s, around 5’4" in height and with dimples,
which she later identified in court as accused Estanly Octa.
describing him as good-looking, wearing red cap, light in
On October 1, 2003, Johnny was released by his captors
after the payment of ransom money. He was detained for the
duration of six (6) days. After his release, he removed his
blindfold and handcuffs but he could hardly regain his sight
and see things. He flagged down a private pick-up and
learned that he was in Camarin, Caloocan City. He asked a
Page 1 of 19
x x x [O]n September 25, 2003, he was still in Daet,
Camarines Norte working as a welder in the welding shop of
his uncle Edwin delos Reyes. He went to Daet on the second
week of August 2003 and returned to Manila when he was
called by his father sometime in November 2003. In addition
to his defense of denial and alibi, he clings to the theory that
he himself was a victim of abduction. He testified that, on
December 1, 2003, while crossing the street, his way was
blocked by a van and thereafter, two (2) persons alighted and
His hands were tied and eyes covered. The incident
eventually brought to the PACER Office, Camp Crame,
Quezon City. He claims that he was tortured to admit the
charge filed against him. At the PACER’s office, he was
presented to a State Prosecutor of the DOJ but he claimed he
was not assisted by counsel. He said that he did not submit
himself for medical examination. He categorically stated that,
when he was inquested by a State Prosecutor, he did not tell
of the alleged torture that he suffered because he was afraid.5
On 4 December 2003, accused-appellant was arrested by the
operatives of the Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response
(PACER) on S[u]sano Road, Camarin, Caloocan City, in
connection with another kidnap for ransom incident. He was
identified by prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz from a
police line-up as the person who had received the ransom
money from her.6  Consequently, on 26 February 2004, an
Information7  was filed against accused-appellant charging
him with the crime of kidnapping for ransom as follows:
of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating, and mutually helping one another, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously kidnap and
deprive JOHNNY L.CORPUZ and MIKE ADRIAN BATUIGAS,
a minor, of their liberty and against their will by means of
threats and intimation with the use of firearms, and then bring
them through the use of a motor vehicle to a house, wherein
they were detained for a period of six (6) days, and that the
abduction of the said victims was for the purpose of extorting
Php538,000.00 was actually delivered to the above-
mentioned accused in exchange for the release of the victims.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
When arraigned on 5 July 2004,accused-appellant, assisted
by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the
merits then ensued.9
On 15 May 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision,10  the
dispositive portion of which is herein quoted:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Estanly Octa y Bas
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the felony charge [sic] and
pursuant to law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer maximum
prison term of reclusion perpetua and to pay the private
aggrieved party of the following:
1. The amount of 538,000.00 as actual and
compensatory damages;
2. The amount of 100,000.00 as moral damages;
and
3. The amount of 50,000.00 as exemplary damages
and cost.
In view of the conviction of the accused, the Manila City Jail
is ordered to commit his person to the National Penitentiary
immediately without necessary [sic] delay.
SO ORDERED.11
In so ruling, the RTC ruled that prosecution witness Ana Marie
Corpuz, wife of victim Johnny Corpuz, steadfastly testified
that she gave the ransom money in the amount of 538,000 to
accused-appellant. She did not waiver in identifying and
built, in his early 20’s, 5’4" and with dimples. The assertion of
Ana Marie Corpuz that accused-appellant was sporting
dimples was squarely corroborated by the court’s observation
when he took the witness stand.12
The trial court also viewed the act of receiving ransom money
as sufficient evidence to establish accused-appellant’s
conspiratorial act in the kidnapping for ransom of the victims demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line
in this case.13
between fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant
With respect to the defense of denial and alibi, the RTC found pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered
them to be inherently weak as opposed to the straightforward look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty
testimony of Corpuz. The claim of accused-appellant that he blanch – these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or
was abducted did not convince the court either, inasmuch as lying through his teeth.27

it was not supported by evidence, nor was it the subject of an x x x x

investigation.14
[Thus], when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the
Upon intermediate appellate review, the CA rendered a findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the
Decision15 promulgated on 19 July 2010, to wit:
testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored
in this case is DENIED and the assailed decision of the on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive
Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, in Manila in Criminal Case effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the
No. 04-224073 finding Estanly Octa y Bas guilty of the crime appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial court’s
of kidnapping for ransom and imposing the penalty of findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said
reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay 538,000.00 as findings are generally binding upon this Court. Without any
actual and compensatory damages, 100,000.00 as moral clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court
damages and 50,000.00 as exemplary damages and cost, is overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not
SO ORDERED.16
be disturbed."28

The CA found the positive identification of accused-appellant In this case, both the RTC and the CA found Corpuz to be a
by prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz to be unwavering credible witness who had categorically testified that she saw
and steadfast. It stressed that his positive identification, when the face of the ransom taker, and that he was actually the
categorical, consistent, straightforward, and without any accused-appellant.

showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying The fact that Corpuz failed to declare in her Sinumpaang
on the matter, would prevail over mere alibi and denial.17 Such Salaysay that the ransom taker was sporting a dimple was
positive identification constituted direct evidence, and not not fatal to her testimony because she was able to positively
merely circumstantial evidence.18
and categorically identify accused-appellant during the police
Moreover, the CA ruled that accused-appellant had been line-up and in open court.

rightly found to be a co-conspirator in this case. At the time Even accused-appellant’s insinuation that Corpuz could have
he received the ransom money, the crime of kidnapping was been influenced by the police during the line-up cannot be
still continuing, since both victims were still illegally detained given weight in the face of his positive identification as the
by the kidnappers. Accused-appellant’s act of taking the ransom taker. On this point, we agree with the observation of
ransom money was an overt act made in pursuance or the CA that "assuming arguendo that the accused-appellant’s
furtherance of the complicity.19
out of court identification was defective, her subsequent
Hence, the instant appeal.20
identification in court cured any flaw that may have initially
ISSUES
attended it. We emphasize that the ‘inadmissibility of a police
line-up identification x x x should not necessarily foreclose
In seeking a reversal of the decisions of the CA and the RTC,
the admissibility of an independent in-court identification.’"29

accused-appellant Octa argues that:

To hold an accused guilty as a co-


1. The trial court gravely erred in convicting him
principal by reason of conspiracy, he

despite the prosecutions’ failure to positively
must be shown to have performed an

identify him as the ransom taker;21

overt act in pursuance or


2. The trial court gravely erred in finding him to be a
furtherance of the complicity.

conspirator to the crime charged;22 and

Accused-appellant also claims that he cannot be considered

3. The trial court gravely erred in convicting him of
as a conspirator to the kidnapping in the absence of concrete
the crime charged based on circumstantial
proof that he actually participated in the execution of the
evidence.23

essential elements of the crime by overt acts indispensable to

THE COURT’S RULING
its accomplishment. His receipt of the ransom money
We deny accused-appellant’s appeal.
transpired only after the kidnapping had been consummated
When the credibility of a witness is at
 and was not an essential element of the crime.30

issue, the findings of fact of the trial
 We disagree.

court are accorded high respect if
 On point is our dissertation in People v. Bautista,31 to wit:

not conclusive effect, more so if


Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
those findings have been affirmed by

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
the appellate court.

to commit it.1awp++i1  Where all the accused acted in

In his Brief, accused-appellant contends that the prosecution
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the one
who received the ransom money. He primarily argues that
prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz could not have
positively ascertained the identity of the ransom taker,
because the area where the transaction took place was dark,
and the man was wearing a cap. Neither did Corpuz declare
concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is
shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or
common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy
is sufficiently established. It must be shown that all
participants performed specific acts with such closeness and
coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to
commit the felony.

in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that the person who received the

x x x x

ransom money was sporting a dimple, a fact that she

Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by
mentioned on direct examination.24 Accused-appellant further
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed
insinuates that the police might have influenced his out-of-
an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.
court identification in the line-up when they informed Corpuz
There must be intentional participation in the transaction with
that they had apprehended some people who were suspects
a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
in other kidnap for ransom cases, and that information might
x x x.

have conditioned her mind that the ransom taker had already
been apprehended.25
x x x x

We disagree.
Taking these facts in conjunction with the testimony of Dexter,
who testified that accused-appellant was the one who
In People v. Basao,26 the Court held that:

received the ransom money x x x then the commonality of

[T]the matter of assigning values to declarations on the
purpose of the acts of accused-appellant together with the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by the
other accused can no longer be denied. Such acts have the
trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe
common design or purpose to commit the felony of
the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various
kidnapping for ransom.

indicia available but not reflected on the record. The

Page 2 of 19
Thus, accused-appellants’ argument that he is a mere house. The first row had six (6) units, one of which is Apartment
accomplice must fail. He is liable as a principal for being a No. 5 and was being leased to Dante Vitalicio (Vitalicio), Pasion’s
co-conspirator in the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under brother-in-law, while the other row was still under construction at
Art. 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659 x x x. the time of his death. Appellants, who were staying in Apartment
32(Emphasis ours)
No. 3, were among the 13 construction workers employed by
Moreover, the CA is correct in its observation that at the time Pasion.6

accused-appellant received the ransom money, the crime of
kidnapping was still continuing, since both victims were still
being illegally detained by the kidnappers.33While his receipt
of the ransom money was not a material element of the crime,
it was nevertheless part of the grand plan and was in fact the
main reason for kidnapping the victims.34  Ransom is money,
price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption
of a captured person or persons; or payment that releases
from captivity.35  Without ransom money, the freedom of the
detained victims cannot be achieved. The positive
identification of accused-appellant constitutes direct, and not
merely circumstantial, evidence.
co-worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by his
Accused-appellant's contention that he was convicted based
o n l y o n c i rc u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d e s e r v e s s c a n t
consideration. We agree with the conclusion of the CA that
"[Corpuz] testified that she gave the ransom money to
accused-appellant, and as the trial court declared, his act of
The prosecution’s evidence show that at around 1:00 a.m. on 29
February 2000, Vitalicio was spin-drying his clothes inside his
apartment when Pasion came from the front door, passed by him
and went out of the back door.7A few minutes later, he heard a
commotion from Apartment No. 3. He headed to said unit to
check. He peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting
something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly
pushed open the screen door and attacked him with a hammer in
his hand. A struggle ensued and Vitalicio was hit several times.
Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and managed to push him away.
Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a
wife that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen of Apartment No.
3. Vitalicio went back to Apartment No. 3 and saw Pasion’s body
lying flat on the kitchen floor. Pasion and Vitalicio were brought to
the hospital. Pasion expired a few hours later while Vitalicio was
treated for his injuries.8

receiving the ransom money is sufficient conspiratorial act in Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on the second
the commission of the kidnapping for ransom. The positive floor of the house when she heard banging sounds and her
identification of the accused-appellant then constitutes direct husband’s moans. She immediately got off the bed and went
evidence, and not merely circumstantial evidence."36
down. Before reaching the kitchen, Col blocked her way. Elsa
With respect to the penalty imposed, we agree with the asked him why he was inside their house but Col suddenly ran
imposition by the RTC and the CA on accused-appellant of towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, considering the prohibition object under her chin. Elsa was wounded when she bowed her
on the death penalty.37  To conform to recent jurisprudence, head to avoid the tear gas.9  Col then instructed her to open the
38  we hereby modify the exemplary damages awarded by vault of the pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she does not
increasing the amount from ₱50,000 to ₱100,000.
know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering him money but Col
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck and
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. pulling her backward. Before they reached the door, Elsa saw
03490 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused- Bokingco open the screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay
appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of na siya."10 Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco.
reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay ₱538,000 as actual Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she saw her husband
damages, ₱100,000 as moral damages, and ₱100,000 as lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood.11

exemplary damages.
PO3 Quirino Dayrit (PO3 Dayrit) was stationed at Police Station
SO ORDERED.
No. 4 in Barangay Salakot, Balibago, Angeles City. At 1:20 a.m. of
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
 29 February 2000, he received a phone call regarding the incident.
Chief Justice, Chairperson
He, together with a certain P/Insp. Maniago, proceeded to
Apartment No. 3 and conducted an investigation. He noticed a
pool of blood on the cemented floor of the kitchen. He also saw a
G.R. No. 187536               August 10, 2011
claw hammer with a green lead pipe handle approximately 13
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
 inches long near the kitchen sink. A lead pipe measuring 40 inches
vs.
 and a chisel were also found in the nearby construction site. The
MICHAEL BOKINGO alias "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" and police went to Angeles University Medical Center afterwards. PO3
REYNANTE COL, Accused-Appellants.
Dayrit saw Pasion lying in one of the beds while Vitalicio was still
loitering around the emergency room. He approached Vitalicio and
D E C I S I O N
Elsa who both informed him of the incident.12 He prepared a police
PEREZ, J.:
report on the same day narrating the result of his investigation.13

For review is the Amended Decision1 dated 14 November 2008 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00658, finding
appellants Michael Bokingco2  (Bokingco) and Reynante Col (Col)
guilty as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Lucina
Dayaon, jotted down notes during the preliminary investigation.
She attests that Bokingco admitted that he conspired with Col to
kill Pasion and that they planned the killing several days before
because they got "fed up" with Pasion.14

perpetua.
The necropsy report prepared by Dr. Joven G. Esguerra (Dr.
On 31 July 2000, an Information3  was filed against appellants Esguerra), contained the following findings:

charging them of the crime of murder committed as follows:

1. Marked pallor of lips and nailbeds

That on or about the 29th day of February, 2000 in the City of 2. Body in rigor mortis

Angeles, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable 3. Contusion with hematoma, right medial infraorbital region
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating extending to the right of the root of the nose.

together and mutually helping each other, armed with a claw 4. Contusion with hematoma, left post-auricular region.

hammer and with intent to kill by means of treachery, evident 5. Contusion with hematoma, right angle of mandible.

premeditation, abuse of confidence, and nighttime, did then and 6. Contusion with hematoma, right mandibular region.

there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and maul 7. Contusion with hematoma, left occipital region.

NOLI PASION, by hitting and beating his head and other parts of
8. Contusion with hematoma, right fronto-parietal region.

his body with said hammer, thereby inflicting upon said NOLI
9. Contusion with hematoma, right supraorbital region.

PASION fatal wounds on his head and body which caused his
death.4
10. Abrasions, linear, confluent, proximal third, right leg anterior 2
½ x 6 ½ cm.

On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded

not guilty. During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime 11. Contusion with hematoma, left shoulder, level of head of left
charged.5
humerus.

The victim, Noli Pasion (Pasion) and his wife, Elsa, were residing in 12. Stab wound, anterior chest along the anterior median line, 7
a house along Mac Arthur Highway in Balibago, Angeles City. cm above the nipple line, 0.8cm length, 0.5 cm wide and 1 cm
Pasion owned a pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He deep, hitting and puncturing the manubrium sterni, not entering
also maintained two (2) rows of apartment units at the back of his the thoracic cavity. Both extremities round.

Page 3 of 19
13. 2 stab wounds, non-penetrating, anterior chest, 13 cm to the premeditation and with the attendant aggravating circumstances
left of the anterior median line, 3 cm below injury (12) 14 cm the of nighttime and abuse of confidence, with no mitigating
right of the anterior median line 4 ½ on below injury (12). Wound circumstances. The proper imposable penalty would have been
0.8 cm in length, both extremities round.
death. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, appellant is
14. Lacerated wound, semi-lunar shape, 3 cm length, left shoulder.
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused-
15. Lacerated wound, right eyebrow area, C-shaped 2 ½ cm appellant is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of victim Noli
length.
Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand pesos
16. Lacerated wound, lateral angle, right eye, 0.8 cm length.
(₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral
damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary
17. Lacerated wound, right supraorbital region, medial aspect, 2
damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate
cm length.

damages; Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees;

18. Lacerated wound, semi-lunar, 5 cm length, occipital region 5
and to pay the costs.22

cm length involving all layers of the scalp with brain tissue seen on
Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration23  and called the
the gaping wound.

appellate court’s attention on the omission to rule on Bokingco’s

19. Lacerated wound, 4 cm length, C-shaped 2 ½ cm to the right
fate when it rendered the challenged decision. Appellants also
of injury (18) 1 ½ cm below, wound involving the whole scalp.

noted the absence of other evidence, aside from Bokingco’s

20. Lacerated wound, left post-auricular region, C-shaped 4 cm admission, to prove that conspiracy existed in the instant case.
length, 3 cm length.
Appellants maintained that the admission made by Bokingco
21. Lacerated wound left post-auricular region, region of the cannot be used as evidence against his alleged co-conspirator.
squamous part of the left temporal bone, C-shaped (2) 3.5 cm and Appellants also took exception to the findings of the lower courts
4 cm lengths.
that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
22. Lacerated wound, right mandibular region 4 cm length, 1 cm premeditation, nighttime and abuse of confidence attended the
wide.
commission of the crime.24

23. Lacerated wound, stellate, 5.5 x 5 x 5 cm, right fronto-parietal The Court of Appeals merely modified its Decision by including the
region with brain tissue out of the gaping wound.
criminal liability of Bokingco in its dispositive portion of its
24. Lacerated wound, right submandibular region 0.3 x 3.5 cm.
Amended Decision, which reads:

25. Lacerated wound, right cheek 0.8 cm length.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with
26. Depressed, complete fracture, occipital bone right with stellate MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants MICHAEL BOKINGCO and
linear extensions, with gaping, with brain tissue maseration.
REYNANTE COL are found GUILTY as conspirators beyond
27. Skull fracture, right fronto-parietal region, depressed, reasonable doubt of MURDER as defined in Article 248 of the
complete, C-shaped with linear extensions, with gaping of bone Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
with brain tissue maceration and expulsion.
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and with the
28. Hemorrhage, massive, subdural and epidural.
attendant aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of
29. Brain tissue damage.15
confidence, with no mitigating circumstances. The proper
imposable penalty would have been death. However, pursuant to
Dr. Esguerra concluded that the injuries sustained by Pasion on his
Republic Act No. 9346, the accused-appellant are sentenced to
skull proved fatal.16

suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without the possibility of

Appellants testified on their own behalf. Bokingco recalled that he
parole (in accordance with Section 3 of the said law). Each of the
was sleeping in Apartment No. 3 at around 1:20 a.m. on 29
accused-appellants is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of
February 2000 when he was awakened by Pasion who appeared
victim Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand pesos
to be intoxicated. The latter wanted to know why he did not see
(₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral
Bokingco at the construction site on 28 February 2000. When
damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary
Bokingco replied that he just stayed at the apartment the whole
damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate
day, Pasion suddenly hit him in the head. This prompted Bokingco
damages; Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees;
to take a hammer and hit Pasion. They both struggled and
and to pay the costs.25

Bokingco repeatedly hit Pasion. Bokingco escaped to Manila right

Appellants filed a notice of appeal. In its Resolution dated 26
after the incident. He was subsequently arrested in Mindanao on
October 2009, this Court required the parties to submit their
11 June 2000.17 During the cross-examination, Bokingco admitted
Supplemental Briefs within 30 days from notice thereof if they so
that he harbored ill feelings towards Pasion.18

desire.26  Appellants manifested that they are no longer filing a

Col confirmed that he was one of the construction workers
Supplemental Brief and are adopting their arguments in the
employed by Pasion. He however resigned on 26 February 2000
Appellant’s Brief submitted before the Court of Appeals.27  The
because of the deductions from his salary. He went home to
appellee likewise manifested that it is dispensing with the filing of a
Cainta, Rizal, where he was apprehended and brought to Camp
Supplemental Brief.28The instant case was thus submitted for
Olivas. Upon reaching the camp, he saw Bokingco who pointed to
deliberation.

him as the person who killed Pasion. He insisted that he doesn’t

In seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Amended
know Bokingco very well.19

Decision, two issues were raised: 1) whether the qualifying

On 16 December 2004, the trial court rendered judgment20 finding
circumstances were properly appreciated to convict appellant
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, viz:

Bokingco of murder and 2) whether appellant Col is guilty beyond

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MICHAEL BOKINGO alias reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator.

MICHAEL BOKINGCO and REYNANTE COL guilty beyond

There is no question that Bokingco attacked and killed Pasion.
reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, defined and penalized
Bokingco made two (2) separate and dissimilar admissions: first, in
in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being the two
his extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence
investigation where he admitted that he and Col planned the killing
to be considered against both accused and the mitigating
of Pasion; and second, when he testified in open court that he was
circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty in favor of accused
only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter hit him in the
Bokingo only, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty
head. On the basis of his extrajudicial confession, Bokingco was
of DEATH. Each accused is ordered to indemnify the heirs of victim
charged for murder qualified by evident premeditation and
Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand pesos
treachery.

(P75,000.00) to pay the heirs of the victim Seventeen thousand six

Appellants maintain that they could not be convicted of murder.
hundred pesos (P17,600.00) as actual damages, Fifteen thousand
They question the presence of treachery in the commission of the
pesos (P15,000.00) as attorney’s fees, Twenty five thousand pesos
crime considering that no one from the prosecution witnesses
(P25,000.00) as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.21

testified on how Pasion was attacked by Bokingco. They also

In its Decision dated 24 July 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed
submit that evident premeditation was not proven in the case.
the findings of the trial court but reduced the penalty to reclusion
They belittle Bokingco’s extrajudicial admission that he and Col
perpetua in view of Republic Act No. 7659, thus:

planned the killing. The attendance of the aggravating

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant REYNANTE COL is found
GUILTY as conspirator beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER as
defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by treachery and evident
Page 4 of 19
circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence was likewise
assailed by appellants. They aver that nighttime was not purposely
sought but it was merely co-incidental that the crime took place at
that time. Neither has trust and confidence been reposed on
appellants by the victim to aggravate the crime by abuse of
confidence. Appellants claim that they were living in an apartment
owned by Pasion, not because the latter trusted them but because
they worked in the construction of the victim’s apartment.
A downgrade of conviction from murder to homicide is proper for
On the other hand, the OSG emphasizes that the prosecution has
established that Pasion was defenseless when fatally attacked by
Bokingco and there was no opportunity for him to defend himself
from the unexpected assaults of Bokingco. The OSG agrees as
well with the trial court’s findings that evident premeditation,
nighttime, and abuse of confidence attended the commission of
the crime.
pursuant to Article 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which ranges
We agree with appellants that treachery cannot be appreciated to
qualify the crime to murder in the absence of any proof of the
manner in which the aggression was commenced. For treachery to
be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that
the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or
form of attack employed by him.29  Nobody witnessed the
commencement and the manner of the attack. While the witness
Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the floor,
he failed to see the victim at that time.30
and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum is appropriate
Bokingco admitted in open court that he killed Pasion.31  But the
admitted manner of killing is inconsistent with evident
premeditation. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the
prosecution must establish the confluence of the following
requisites: (a) the time when the offender was determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender
clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time
between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.32  It is
indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched
or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.  33 In the
instant case, no proof was shown as to how and when the plan to
kill was devised. Bokingco admitted in court that he only retaliated
when Pasion allegedly hit him in the head.34  Despite the fact that
Bokingco admitted that he was treated poorly by Pasion, the
prosecution failed to establish that Bokingco planned the attack.
of murder by conspiracy by mentioning that starting from the
It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco
mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill Pasion.35  Bokingco’s
confession was admittedly taken without the assistance of counsel
in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides:
OSG, appellants’ acts are indicative of conspiracy. The OSG
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
This Court is well aware of the policy to accord proper deference
x x x x
to the factual findings of the trial court, owing to their unique
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.
In People v. Sunga,36 we held that "the right to counsel applies in
certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed ‘critical stages’ in
the criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no
different from the in-custody interrogations by the police, for a
suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be
subjected to no less than the State's processes, oftentimes
intimidating and relentless, of pursuing those who might be liable
for criminal prosecution."37  In said case, Sunga made an
uncounselled admission before the police. He later acknowledged
the same admission before the judge in a preliminary investigation.
Sunga was thrust into the preliminary investigation and while he
did have a counsel, for the latter’s lack of vigilance and
commitment to Sunga’s rights, he was virtually denied his right to
counsel. Thus, the uncounselled admission was held inadmissible.
38  In the instant case, the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible
against Bokingco because he was not assisted at all by counsel
during the time his confession was taken before a judge.
interest.42  Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is
anchored on the presumption that there was evident
premeditation. Having ruled however that evident premeditation
has not been proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
cannot be properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show
that Bokingco purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the
commission of the offense.
appellants fled together after killing her husband and the
Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in this case. Taking into account that
fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he
enjoyed the trust and confidence of Pasion. However, there was no
Page 5 of 19
showing that he took advantage of said trust to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
Bokingco for failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of
the qualifying circumstances.
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable
penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance alleged and proven in the
instant case, the penalty should be applied in its medium period
from a minimum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to a maximum of
17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision mayor in
any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium
period as the maximum. The range of prision mayor is from 6 years
and 1 day to 12 years, while reclusion temporal in its medium
period, ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and
4 months. Therefore, the indeterminate penalty of six years and
one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months
under the circumstances.39  The award of exemplary damages
should be deleted as no aggravating circumstance was proven.
Col, on the other hand, was charged as a co-conspirator. He
contends that to hold him guilty as co-conspirator, it must be
established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy. Applying Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
Col asserts that Bokingco’s uncounselled testimony that
appellants planned to kill Pasion bears no relevance considering
the fact that there was no other evidence which will prove the
conspiracy. Col also claims that Elsa’s statements during trial,
such as the presence of Col inside her house and his forcing her to
open the vault of the pawnshop, as well as the alleged statement
she heard from Bokingco "Tara, patay na siya," are not adequate
to support the finding of conspiracy.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) justifies Col’s conviction
declaration of Bokingco, the victim’s wife, Elsa, also positively
declared that Col blocked and attacked her with a knife when she
tried to check on her husband. She was left alone by Col when he
was told by Bokingco that the victim was already dead. For the
contends that the prosecution witnesses had no ill-motive to lie
and falsely accuse appellants of the crime of murder.
The lower courts concluded that there was conspiracy between
appellants.
We disagree.
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their
40  However, this rule admits of exceptions, namely: 1) when the
trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by
the evidence on record, or 2) when certain facts of substance and
value likely to change the outcome of the case have been
overlooked by the lower court, or 3) when the assailed decision is
based on a misapprehension of facts.41  The second exception
obtains in this case.
Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation
in the case before us, it is necessary that conspiracy between him
and Bokingco be proved. Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may
be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and
after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy may be deduced
from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated
or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or
common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of
conspiracy.43
As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same quantum
of proof as the crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the
commission of the crime.44
The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that
extrajudicial confession of Bokingco.
Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col was not
seen at the apartment where Pasion was being attacked by
Bokingco. In fact, he was at Elsa’s house and allegedly ordering
her to open the pawnshop vault, thus:
Q: Do you remember any unusual incident that happened on that Q: What else happened next when he did not agree to your offer of
time and date when you were in your master’s bedroom?
money?

A: I heard a bumping sound (kalabog) at the back portion of our A: He dragged me going towards the back door.46

building where we reside.

Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that Col
x x x x
conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s
Q: What did you do when you heard those sounds in the wee actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was
hours of the morning on that day when you were in your master’s actually the initial information filed against appellants before it was
bedroom?
amended, on motion of the prosecution, for murder.47

A: I wondered why and I immediately went down to the kitchen Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion
since the door of the kitchen was directly leading to the back door had been killed and that they had to leave the place. This does not
or back portion of the building where the apartments were prove that they acted in concert towards the consummation of the
situated.
crime. It only proves, at best, that there were two crimes
Q: Why, on what floor is this master’s bedroom located?
committed simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to
A: Second floor.
escape from the crimes they separately committed.

Q: Were you actually able to go down and see what was Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.
happening?
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col.
Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was
A: Yes, sir, but I was only able to reach the stairs leading to the
killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to
kitchen. I was not able to go out of the kitchen because I was
rob the pawnshop.1avvphi1

blocked.

In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible

Q: You were blocked by whom?

against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically

A: By Reynante Col.

where he implicated the latter as a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule

Q: Are you referring to the same Reynante Col, the accused in this 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be
case?
prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter
A: Yes, sir.
alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, an extrajudicial
x x x x
confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible
Q: You said you were blocked by Reynante Col. How did he block against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay
you?
against them.48  An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an
A: As soon as I reached the stairs, I was blocked by Reynante Col admission made by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 of the
and he was situated near the back door of the pawnshop. There is Rules of Court provides that the act or declaration of the
a pawnshop in the front portion of our residence.
conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may
Q: When you saw him near the door of your pawnshop, did you be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided that the
confront him?
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such act or
A: Yes, sir.
declaration.49 In order that the admission of a conspirator may be
Q: How did you confront him?
received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that
first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
A: I asked him, Reynante, what are you doing here?

admission itself; second, the admission relates to the common

Q: What was the reaction of Reynante Col?

object; and third, it has been made while the declarant was
A: He ran towards me and sprayed something into my eyes and he engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.50  As we have previously
put a sharp object under my chin. (Witness demonstrating by discussed, we did not find any sufficient evidence to establish the
putting her hand under her chin)
existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession has
Q: How far was he before he attacked you?
no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence against Col.

A: Probably, from the witness stand up to the chair of Fiscal Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because Bokingco
Hilario. Maybe two steps away from him. (Around 3 meters)
admitted that he only attacked Pasion after the latter hit him in the
Q: Were you able to identify what this spray is and what part of head.

your body was hit?

All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because no sufficient
A: My eyes were sprayed with tear gas.
evidence was adduced to implicate him.

Q: What did you feel when your eyes was (sic) sprayed with tear WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
gas?
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00658 is REVERSED and SET
A: It was "mahapdi" (painful).
ASIDE. Appellant Reynante Col is ACQUITTED on ground of
Q: When you felt pain in your eyes, how were you able to see reasonable doubt. The Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause
something or a sharp weapon under your chin?
the immediate release of accused-appellant, unless he is being
A: Before he sprayed the tear gas to my eyes, I was able to see lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action
him poke the sharp object under my chin and I bowed my head a taken within ten (10) days from notice.

little to avoid the tear gas. I was wounded under my chin and I felt Appellant Michael Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
the sharpness of the object.45
doubt of the crime of Homicide. He is hereby sentenced to suffer
x x x x
the penalty of six years (6) and one (1) day of prision mayor as
Q: What else happened while he was doing that to you?
minimum to 14 years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
A: He sprayed tear gas in my eyes and told me to be silent.
temporal, as maximum Appellant is further ordered to indemnify
the heirs of Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five thousand
Q: What else, if any, did he tell you?

pesos (₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral

A: To open the combination of the vault.

damages; Twenty five thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate

Q: Did you comply to his order that you open the combination of damages; Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees;
the vault?
and to pay the costs.

A: No, sir. I do not know the combination.

SO ORDERED.

Q: What vault are you referring to?

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

A: Vault of the pawnshop.
Associate Justice

Q: Where is that pawnshop located with reference to your

residence?
G.R. No. 132895             March 10, 2004

A: At the first floor is the pawnshop and at the back is our kitchen.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, 

Q: When you refused to open the vault of the pawnshop, what did vs.

Reynante Col do about it?
ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE
A: He did not say anything.
PADAYHAG, appellants.

Q: How about you, was there anything else you did?

A: I offered him money so he will not kill me.

D E C I S I O N

Q: When you offered him money so he will not kill you, did he
agree?

PER CURIAM:

A: No, sir.

Page 6 of 19
Before us on automatic review is the Decision1 of the Regional Trial
Court of Parañaque, Branch 260, National Capital Judicial Region,
in Criminal Case No. 95-86, finding appellants Elizabeth Castillo
("Castillo") and Evangeline Padayhag ("Padayhag") guilty of
Qualified Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention2 and sentencing
Luis Cebrero decided to connect a tape recorder to his phone. On
March 2, 1995, at about 7:20 p.m., his phone rang. The caller was
a woman telling him, "Bigyan mo ako nang isang million", to which
he replied, "Hindi ko kayang ibigay ang isang million". The caller
told Luis that she will call back later on (pp. 11-12, supra).

them to death.
The Cebreros informed the authorities that two of their maids were
The Information 3  charging Castillo, Padayhag and Imelda hired from an agency, the General Services, Inc. at Parañaque.
Wenceslao with the crime of kidnapping, reads:
Major Ordoyo of the Intelligence Security Group, Philippine Army
That on or about March 1, 1995, in Parañaque, Metro Manila, (PA) sent Sergeants Rempillo and Iglesias to the agency to verify
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, said this. The two were furnished by General Services, Inc. with the
accused ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG, personal data of the maids named Elizabeth Castillo and Jasmine
conspiring together, confederating, and mutually helping one Nuñez (pp. 13-14, tsn, March 12, 1996).

another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
kidnap, carry away, and seriously detain HORACIO CEBRERO IV
@ "Rocky", a five years old child (sic), which kidnapping or serious
detention lasted for more than three (3) days thereby depriving him
of his liberty, and which was committed for the purpose of
When the caller did not contact Luis Cebrero the following day,
March 3, 1995, he instructed his wife to raise some money. From
the bank, Mrs. Cebrero withdrew P800,000.00 in P1,000.00
denomination. The bank provided Mrs. Cebrero a list containing
the serial numbers of the money withdrawn (pp. 15-16, supra).

extorting ransom from the parents of the victim, to the damage On March 4, 1995, at about 9:30 p.m., Luis Cebrero received a
and prejudice of the victim himself and his parents.
telephone call. The caller was a woman who asked, "Ano nasa iyo
The said accused IMELDA CASTILLO WENCESLAO, without na ba ang pera"? Luis answered, "Hindi ko kayang ibigay sa iyo
having participated in the said crime as a principal, did then and ang halagang iyon, kalahati lang ang kaya kong ibigay". The caller
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously participated (sic) in the said, "Sige, puede na yan (p. 17,  supra) and instructed Luis
execution of the crime by previous and simultaneous acts by Cebrero to be in Paco, Obando, Bulacan, alone, at about 2:00
allowing and furnishing the use of her residence where victim a.m.; that at Paco, Obando, Bulacan, is a "Farmacia Dilag" and
Horacio Cebrero IV was kept knowing him to have been taken by beside it is a street which Luis must follow until he reaches the
principal accused Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag church called "Sabadista" where he should drop the money (p.
without the consent of his parents.
18,  supra). Luis Cebrero received another call on that same night
CONTRARY TO LAW.
instructing him to stop in front of the Farmacia Dilag and walk on
Upon arraignment on 10 May 1995, both Castillo and Padayhag the street beside it going to a chapel and to drop the money on the
initially pleaded guilty. However, on 18 May 1995, Castillo and chapel’s terrace (p. 19, supra).

Padayhag withdrew their plea of guilt. They entered a plea of not Informed of the place for the pay-off, on March 4, 1995, Major
guilty on 3 August 1995. Imelda Wenceslao remains at large.
Ronnie Eleazar, Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Security
The prosecution submitted documentary evidence and presented Group (ISG), Philippine Army, briefed his men on Rocky’s
eight witnesses, namely: (1) Horacio Cebrero IV ("Rocky"), the kidnapping and assigned them their respective tasks in the
victim; (2) Rosanna Baria, the victim’s "yaya"; (3) Luis Cebrero, the stakeout they will undertake around the pay-off area (pp. 6-7 tsn,
victim’s father; (4) Sandra Cebrero, the victim’s mother; (5) Staff January 30, 1996). At about 11:00 p.m. of March 4, 1995, Sgt.
Sgt. Alejandro Delena of the Philippine National Police ("PNP"); (6) Alejandro Delena and his ISG team, proceeded to Obando,
Wivino Demol, a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Bulacan for the stakeout. After positioning themselves near the
("AFP") Intelligence Security Group, army surveillance and search stakeout site, a car arrived and stopped in front of the chapel. The
team; (7) Capt. Raniel Ramiro, also of the AFP Intelligence Security man alighted and placed a bag in front of the chapel and
Group; (8) and Staff Sgt. Manual Iglesias of the PNP.
immediately left (p. 10,  supra). After about forty (40) minutes, two
The defense presented only two witnesses: Castillo and Padayhag women appeared, proceeded to where the bag was dropped. On
themselves.
seeing the bag, the women laughed and left. After about two (2)
minutes, the two women returned, picked up the bag and
The Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG") summarized the
immediately left (pp. 11-12,  supra). The ISG team searched the
prosecution’s version of the incident in the appellee’s brief, as
area around the drop-off place but the two women were nowhere
follows:

to be found (p. 17,  supra). In court, Sgt. Delena pointed to and

On March 1, 1995, Rosanna Baria was employed as one of the
identified Castillo and Padayhag as the two women he saw in front
household helpers of Mr. and Mrs. Luis De Guzman Cebrero at
of the chapel in Obando, Bulacan and who, later on, picked up the
their residence in Classic Homes, B. F. Parañaque, Metro Manila
bag dropped by Luis Cebrero (p. 12, supra).

(p. 26, tsn, August 3, 1995). In the morning of said date, Femie,
Puzzled by the sudden disappearance of the two women, Sgt.
another housemaid of the Cebreros’ and Baria’s relative, bathed
Delena and his team remained at the stake-out area. The team
and dressed up Rocky, the couple’s six year old son and
befriended the residents of the place, one of whom was a certain
afterwards advised Baria that someone, who was also a Cebrero
Joselito Torres who claimed to be the former boyfriend of Elizabeth
househelper, will fetch Rocky (p. 28, supra). At about 8:00 a.m., a
Castillo whom he recognized from the picture shown to him by
tricycle arrived. On board was a woman, whom Baria pointed to in
Sgt. Delena. Torres informed the ISG team that Castillo had
court and who gave her name as Evangeline Padayhag (p.
already left for Mindanao. Sgt. Delena immediately communicated
26, supra). Baria assisted Rocky to board the tricycle. The tricycle
the information, including the address of Gigi Padayhag in
brought Rocky and the woman, whom Rocky pointed to in court
Navotas, to his commanding officer (p. 19, supra).

and who gave her name as Evangeline Padayhag (p. 9, tsn, August
3, 1995), to a nearby "Mcdonald’s". Thereat, they were joined by
another woman (p. 13, supra) whom Rocky pointed to in court and
who gave her name as Elizabeth Castillo (p. 9,  supra). The three
proceeded to a house far from the "Mcdonald’s" (p. 13,  supra)
At about 9:00 p.m. of March 5, 1995, Luis Cebrero was at home
when a tricycle stopped in front of his house. Somebody knocked
at the door and when Luis Cebrero opened it, he saw his son,
Rocky (pp. 23-24, tsn, August 22, 1995).

where Rocky slept "four times" (p. 14, supra).

On March 12, 1995, an ISG team headed by Sgt. Manuel Iglesias
At about 5:30 p.m. of March 1, 1995, Luis Cebrero arrived home was dispatched to Navotas to locate "Gigi" Padayhag at the
from work. When his son DJ arrived, he informed his father that address furnished by Sgt. Delena. The team found Padayhag who
Rocky did not attend school. Luis Cebrero asked Baria (pp. 4-5, upon being apprised of the kidnapping of Rocky Cebrero,
tsn, August 22, 1995) who told him that Rocky was fetched at voluntarily went with the ISG team to Camp Crame to clear her
home by a woman to attend a birthday party (p. 5,  supra). name (p. 14, tsn, May 22, 1996).

Informed thereof, Mr. Cebrero then called up his friends and went Upon the instruction of the ISG, Sgts. Delena and Demo were
to the police station to report that his son was missing (p. ordered to proceed to Dipolog City to look for Castillo (pp. 20-21,
9, supra).
tsn, January 30, 1996). Sgt. Delena arrived in Dipolog City on
At about 7:30 p.m. that night, Luis Cebrero received a telephone March 13, 1996. He was briefed and shown the area where Castillo
call from a woman saying, "Ibigay mo sa akin ang ATM card mo o could be found (p. 23, supra).

ang bata" (p. 10, supra). Luis replied, "Kailangan ko ang bata". The When Sgt. Demol arrived in Dipolog City, he and Sgt. Delena
woman asked how much money was in his ATM and Luis replied coordinated with the PNP stationed at Barangay Tulong, Rizal,
P40,000.00. Luis then requested to talk to his son but the woman Zamboanga del Norte (p. 41, tsn, March 12, 1996). Thereat, Sgt.
said, "Hindi puwede, malayo dito ang anak mo at tatawag na lang Demol requested for the assistance of persons from Barangay
uli ako" (p. 10, supra).
Mitimos, where Castillo was believed to be hiding. The PNP

Page 7 of 19
assigned them two barangay officials of Mitimos who, when Wenceslao then asked if they asked permission from the parents,
shown the picture of Castillo, said that the woman in the picture is and Castillo answered "no";

in Barangay Mitimos (p. 46, supra).

14. At night, Castillo talked to Mr. Luis Cebrero over the phone to
Upon the request of the police, the two barangay officials inform him that Rocky was with her. Mr. Cebrero told her not to
conducted a daily surveillance on Castillo. On March 18, 1995, harm the boy. No threat or demand for ransom was ever made by
Sgt. Demol reported to the ISG headquarters that Castillo was in the accused to the Cebrero spouses. She never asked Mr. Cebrero
Barangay Mitimos. In turn, Sgt. Demol was advised that ISG will how much money he had in the bank;

be sending him, through JRS Express, copies of the list of serial
numbers of the bills used as pay-off and a DOJ subpoena (p.
54, supra). Upon receipt of said documents, Sgt. Demol applied for
a search warrant (p. 58, supra) which was granted by the Dipolog
City Regional Trial Court on March 21, 1995 (p. 57,  supra). The
search warrant was shown to Elizabeth Castillo and her father who
15. The following day, 2 March 1995, Castillo called Mr. Cebrero
again to tell him that she could not yet return Rocky because he
still had a slight fever. She also told Mr. Cebrero: "Hindi nyo ako
sinusuwelduhan". He asked her: "Magkano ba ang kailangan mo?"
She did not answer. Then Mr. Cebrero said: "May pera ako rito,
kalahating milyon." At that moment, Castillo hanged-up the phone;

signed the same (pp. 60-61,  supra). The search yielded a black 16. Castillo denied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 25 August
bag placed in a carton inside the house (pp. 61-62) containing 1999, attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof,
money in P1,000.00 bills in the total amount of P277,000.00 (p. that she demanded one million (P1,000,000.00) from the Cebrero
68,  supra). The serial numbers of the recovered money bills spouses;

appeared in the list furnished to Sgt. Demol by ISG (pp. 17. On the evening of 4 March 1995, when Castillo called Mr.
88-89,  supra). Thereafter, the money was deposited with the Cebrero, he asked them where they were. The accused told him
Regional Trial Court at Dipolog City (p. 89, supra).
that they were in Paco, Ubando, Bulacan, near a Protestant
Prosecuted for kidnapping and serious illegal detention, Church. Mr. Cebrero then said: "Pupunta ako riyan bandang 2:00
Evangeline Padayhag and Elizabeth Castillo initially pleaded guilty ng madaling araw (March 5, 1999) na may bitbit na pera at ilalapag
upon arraignment and were each meted the penalty of life ko ito sa may simbahan";

imprisonment (p. 4, tsn, August 3, 1995). The trial court, however, 18. On 5 March 1995, at around 4:30 a.m. Castillo and Padayhag
on motion based on improvident plea, ordered the withdrawal of went out to buy "pandesal". They noticed that at a post near a
the plea of guilty and directed the re-arraignment of Castillo and Church, a dog was trying to pull a black plastic bag. They picked it
Padayhag.
up and brought it home. When they opened it, they found five
After trial, Castillo and Padayhag were convicted of kidnapping bundles of money, in P1,000.00 denomination;

and serious illegal detention as charged.4

19. At about 9:00 p.m. of the same day, Mr. Cebrero heard a
Appellants maintain their innocence and present their own version tricycle stop in front of their house. Someone knocked at the door,
of the events in their brief, as follows:
and when he opened the door, he saw Rocky;

1. Accused ELIZABETH CASTILLO was a househelper at the 20. On 11 March 1995, Capt. Raniel Ramiro, Intelligence Security
Cebrero household from December 1993 to January 1995. She did Group of the Philippine Army, together with his men, after
the cleaning of the house, laundry of dirty clothes, and also took coordinating with Caloocan Police, arrested Evangeline Padayhag
care of Rocky, son of Luis and Sandra Cebrero;
at her residence at Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City. The military
2. Accused Evangeline Padayhag, also a househelper, is a friend of men did not have a warrant of arrest at this particular operation;

Elizabeth Castillo. The two met sometime in 1994 at Paco, 21. The military were civilian-dressed. They pretended to be
Ubando, Bulacan, when Padayhag worked in the household of Padayhag’s cousins who came from abroad, and they "invited her
Julito Lawagon, the latter being the neighbor of Helen Lim, to a birthday party". However, they brought her to Fort Bonifacio
Elizabeth Castillo’s sister;
for interrogation. It was only then that Padayhag learned that her
3. Upon assumption from work, Castillo was promised by Mrs. companions were military men;

Sandra Cebrero a monthly salary of one thousand two hundred 22. At Fort Bonifacio, the police coerced Padayhag to confess to
pesos (P1,200.00);
the crime, threatening her: "Pag hindi ka pa umamin, kami na
4. Castillo, however, was never given compensation during her mismo and bibitay sa iyo". Padayhag, however, did not confess to
entire employment in the Cebrero household;
the commission of the crime. She was then brought to Camp
5. Castillo was also not treated nicely by the Cebrero spouses. Crame at Quezon City on that same date;

When something gets lost in the house, she was always the one 23. The following day, 12 March 1995, during the custodial
being blamed, although the children were the ones getting the investigation, a certain Major Meneses was exerting pressure on
things. Besides, they say bad words against her. Thus, she has no Padayhag to reveal where the P500,000.00 is. She told Major
other choice but to leave her work;
Meneses: "Wala akong pera na ganoon kalaki." He said to her:
6. Castillo had been consistently demanding from the Cebrero "Pag hindi ka umamin, papatayin na kita talaga!" Her answer was:
spouses her unpaid wages for one year; but her demands "Patayin nyo man ako, hindi ako aamin dahil wala akong ganoong
remained unheeded;
kalaking pera." Major Meneses then slapped Padayhag and hit her
7. Having reached only elementary education, Castillo believed with a stool on her leg;

that the only effective way for her to claim back her unpaid wages 24. Major Meneses also threatened Padayhag that if she would not
is to use Rocky, son of the Cebrero Spouses;
confess to the crime, he would submerge her on a drum. They
8. On 1 March 1995 Castillo called Padayhag, telling the latter that forcibly brought her to a toilet room. She saw there two big drums.
her boyfriend is sick. At that time, Padayhag was already working Major Meneses then told her: "Iyong mga hindi umamin, nilulublob
at Jelaya St., B.F. Homes, Parañaque under the employ of Lulu namin dito sa drum". Padayhag shouted. Thereafter, someone
Sablan. Castillo fetched Padayhag. The two, however, did not go knocked at the door and said: "Pakawalan n’yo na iyan dahil
to see Padayhag’s boyfriend but instead they went to a marami nang tao". They brought her out of the room and
playground;
handcuffed her;

9. Castillo then instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky from his house
at Cesar Virata St., B.F. Homes, Parañaque, Manila. When
Padayhag asked why she wanted to see Rocky, Castillo answered
that she missed the boy. Padayhag obliged to the request,
knowing that the latter would not do any harm to the boy;
diyan!";
25. SPO1 Larry Pablo was likewise threatening Padayhag: "Pag
hindi ka pa umamin, ihuhulog na kita sa bintanang ito!" (They were
on the third floor of a building) "Alam mo ba kung ilan na ang
naihulog namin diyan? Panlabindalawa ka na sa ihuhulog namin

10. It was only the first time that Padayhag saw Rocky;
26. During the custodial investigation, Padayhag was not assisted
11. She brought the child to a market at B.F. Parañaque, where by a counsel, nor has she waived her right to counsel. She was
Castillo was waiting. The three went on a stroll. Thereafter, they coerced by the police into signing an extrajudicial confession
went to the house of Imelda Wenceslao, Castillo’s sister, at without even explaining to her the contents thereof;

Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Castillo noticed that Rocky had a 27. Atty. Eranio Sedillo only arrived one hour (1 hr.) after Padayhag
fever, so she requested Vangie to buy a medicine;
had already signed the questioned extrajudicial confession;

12. Padayhag was not told by Castillo as to when the latter would 28. Elizabeth Castillo was arrested at Mitimos, Rizal, Zamboanga
return the boy. Padayhag did not sense anything wrong with what del Norte on or about 21 March 1995. Police officers came to her
had happened as she believed that Castillo only took Rocky for a house, and when they informed her that they were looking for the
stroll;
money, she voluntarily gave it to them;

13. Imelda Wenceslao asked why they brought a child along with
them. Castillo answered that she just wanted to see the boy.
Page 8 of 19
29. The approximate amount of money taken by Castillo was only on the victim or threats to kill are made; or (d) the person
twenty thousand (P20,000.00) She returned the rest of the money kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.9

to the police who arrested, her;

Appellant Castillo’s Liability

30. Castillo vehemently denied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay (par. Castillo asserts that the victim’s parents did not pay her wages
No. 14) that she returned only P227,000.00;
when she worked as a maid of the victim’s family.10She claims that
31. Castillo and her escorts were fetched in Manila by a van. Inside it was this injustice, her educational level and her ignorance of the
the van, they blindfolded her. They removed her blindfold when law, which impelled her to take Rocky. She faults the trial court for
they reached Camp Crame;
refusing to consider this. Castillo is mistaken. Whether or not her
32. Major Meneses and SPO1 Larry Pablo investigated her. She employer failed to pay her salary is irrelevant. No amount of
was slapped by Pablo, forcing her to admit where the money is;
perceived injustice can serve as justification for any person to
33. During the investigation, Pablo poked a gun on her, then forced retaliate through the commission of another crime. The trial court
her to write what he would say to her. He instructed her to write: was therefore correct in disregarding Castillo’s claim that Rocky’s
"Na kapag hindi ko isasauli ang lahat ng pera ay pwede n’yo na parents committed injustice on her.

akong patayin". Castillo followed the instructions because of fear.5

Castillo’s claim of injustice cannot justify in any way her demand
In an 11-page Decision, of which nine pages were devoted to the
recital of facts, the trial court found the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses more credible and gave no weight to
Castillo and Padayhag’s defenses. The trial court convicted
appellants on 17 December 1997 and imposed on them the death
for ransom. Ransom is "money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a
payment that releases from captivity."11  Thus, even if she had a
right to demand payment of her unpaid wages, the money she
actually demanded and eventually received, is still ransom.

penalty, thus:
Castillo’s reliance on her low educational level is similarly
Originally, both accused pleaded guilty to the offense and were unavailing. The penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular
meted the penalty of life imprisonment. However, shortly thereafter, and indivisible penalty of death. This bars the application of any
they moved to withdraw their plea claiming it was precipitate, alternative, mitigating or aggravating circumstance.12

which the court allowed and proceeded with a full-blown trial.

Mr. Cebrero admitted that he was unable to identify his son
Accused Elizabeth Castillo demanded money from Rocky’s Rocky’s abductors. De Lena and Iglesias, the police officers who
parents for the release of the latter. She told his father to bring the did the stake-out during the "pay-off," testified that the two
money to Obando Bulacan. The Court can only imagine the pain, women suddenly disappeared after retrieving the plastic bag
worry, fear and anxiety of the boy’s parents while their youngest containing the ransom. The police officers’ inability to explain how
son was under detention.
two simple maids managed to give 5 carloads of police officers the
Ransom is money, price or consideration demanded for the slip severely discredits their account of what happened that day.

redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that Rocky’s testimony, however, leaves no room for doubt. Only six
releases from captivity" (Corpus Juris Secundum 458). The years of age when he testified, Rocky was candid and direct in his
testimony of Elizabeth Castillo that she did not know about the recollection, narrating events as a young boy saw them happen,
money cannot be given weight. Two hundred Seventy Seven thus:

Thousand (P277,000.00) Pesos was found among her things, the COURT

bills bearing the same serial number as the money paid to her.
Alright. Rocky, when Vangie went to fetch you from your house.

The court has taken a hard look in determining the liability of A       Yes.

Evangeline Padayhag as it seems that her only participation in the COURT

crime was picking up the boy from his house. Although she did not You took a tricycle.

get part of the ransom the fact is that she fully and directly A       Yes.

cooperated and did her part to carry out the resolution of her co- COURT

accused. Under these facts there was conspiracy to extort

Where did you go?

ransom. People versus Kamad Akiran, 18 SCRA 239.

A       I do not know.

The Court is convinced that the prosecution has established the

PROS. FONACIER

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Your Honor, please, may we request that the rule on evidence be

WHEREFORE, ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE
not strict on this boy. The witness is of tender age.

PADAYHAG are sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death.

Further, they are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the ATTY. SOLUREN

sum of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos as moral There is no strict implementation as to what the Honorable
damages and Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos as Prosecutor stated. There is no strict implementation of the rules of
exemplary damages plus costs of litigation.
court. In fact, we are very lenient but the fact is, the child said he
SO ORDERED.6
does not know. But the question is – he was giving the answer to
this witness.

Appellants seek the reversal of their conviction by raising the

following assignments of error:
COURT

I
Ask another question.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MISAPPRECIATING (SIC) THE Q       Rocky, nang sumakay kayo ni Vangie sa tricycle, nakita mo
FACTS OF THE CASE.
ba si Beth Castillo?

II
A       Nakita namin si Beth sa McDonalds. Malapit sa amin.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS Q       Rocky, nakita ninyo si Beth. Ngayon, tatlo na kayo, ikaw, si
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT RANSOM IN THIS CASE.
Beth at si Vangie?

III
A       Yes.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE Q       Rocky, noong magkasama na kayong tatlo, saan kayo
UNCOUNSELLED CONFESSION OF EVANGELINE PADAYHAG.
nagpunta?

IV
A       Nasundo namin si Beth.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH Q       Noong nasundo na ninyo si Beth, saan kayo nagpunta?

PENALTY IN THE CASE AT BAR.7

A       Sa bahay nila.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment convicting Castillo. However, Q       Kaninong bahay?

we acquit her co-accused Padayhag.

A       Hindi ko alam.

To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Q       Malayo ba sa McDonald o malapit. Sinabi mo kanina,
Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,8the nagpunta kayo sa bahay nila?

prosecution must establish the following: (1) the offender is a A       Yes.

private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other Q       Iyong bahay na pinuntahan ninyo, malayo sa McDonald?

manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of kidnapping A       Malayo.

or detention is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any Q       Anong sinakyan ninyo?

of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or A       Hindi ko alam.

detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by

Q       Noong dumating kayo doon sa bahay na hindi ninyo, bahay,
simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted
natulog ka ba doon?

Page 9 of 19
A       Yes.
A       Si Luis Cebrero po, mam.

Q       Ilang beses ka natulog doon?

Q       What happened next after that?

A       4 sleeps.
A       Pagtawag ko po kay Mr. Luis Cebrero tinanong po niya sa
Q       Pinakakain ka ba sa bahay na pinuntahan ninyo?
akin kung nasaan si Rocky, mam.

A       Yes.
Q       And what is your reply?

Q       Ano ang pinakakain sa iyo?

A       Sinabi ko po na nandidito sa amin, mam.

A       Champorado and fish.

Q       After that what happened next?

Q       Sino ang nagpapakain sa iyo?

A       Nagalit po si Luis Cebrero sa akin, mam.

A       Vangie.
Q       And what did you do when Luis Cebrero got angry?

Q       Sino si Vangie. Puede mo bang ituro sa amin?

A        Tinanong po niya ako kung magkano ang kailangan ko,
PROS. FONACIER
mam.

The witness is pointing to accused Evangeline Padayhag as the Q       And what else did he say, Miss witness?

Vangie he was referring to.

A       Sinabi po niya sa akin na huwag ko raw pong sasaktan si
Q       Doon sa 4 sleeps mo sa bahay na iyon, saan ka pa nila Rocky, mam.

dinala?
Q       And then what else?

A       Pinauwi na ako.
A       Pinipilit po niya ako na kung magkano daw ang kailangan
Q       Sinong kasama mo noong pinauwi ka?
namin na pera, pagkatapos hindi ko na po sinagot ang tanong
A       Wala, pero mula sa McDonald, naiwan na ako sa tricycle niya, mam.

hanggang sa bahay.13
Q       And then what happened next?

Unshaken by rigorous cross-examination, Rocky’s testimony A       Binaba ko na po iyong telepono, mam.17 (Emphasis supplied)

would have been more than enough to convict Castillo. The The number and time of these calls coincided with the calls Mr.
testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient Cebrero received from Castillo telling him that she had Rocky and
to convict.14  But there is more. The evidence on record amply instructing him to pay the ransom for Rocky’s release.

supports the factual findings of the trial court. Both the evidence of Additionally, Castillo by her own admission placed herself at the
the prosecution and the defense establish the commission of the time and place where the "pay-off" occurred:

crime.
T       Sa pangatlong araw naman, nandoon ka pa rin ba at saka si
Castillo admitted she instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky on 1 Rocky?

March 1995:
S       Opo.

Q        And as a result of sitting at the palaruan, Miss witness, T       Sa bahay ni Imelda?

what happened next?

S       Nagpaalam po ako sa kapatid ko na maghahanap muna ako
A       Pinasundo ko si Rocky kay Vangie, mam.
ng trabaho.

Q       And why did you ask Vangie to fetch Rocky, Miss witness?
T       Si Vangie, saan naman siya noon?

A       Kasi po naalala ko pagnamamalengke ako at kasama ko si S       Nandoon pa rin sa Dagat-dagatan po.

Rocky, lagi po kaming pumupunta sa palaruan, mam

T       Si Rocky naman?

Q       And then what happened next, Miss witness?

S       Andoon po sa bahay ng kapatid ko.

A       Sinundo po ni Vangie si Rocky, mam.

T       Mga anong oras yon na nagpaalam ka na maghanap ng
Q       Whom did Vangie fetch, Miss witness?
trabaho?

A       Si Rocky po, mam.

S       Umaga po ako nagpaalam.

Q       And after Rocky fetched by Vangie, what happened next?

T       Kung ganoon umalis ka ng umagang yan?

A       Ipinasyal po namin si Rocky, mam.15 (Emphasis supplied)

S       Opo.

She also testified that she had no permission from Rocky’s parents T       Saan ka naman pumunta?

to take the child with her:

S       Naghanap po ako ng trabaho.

T       Saan kayo nananghalian?

T       Saan ka naghanap ng trabaho?

S       Doon po sa bahay ng kapatid ko.

S       Sa may bandang Bulacan po.

T       Noong dumating kayo doon, ano naman ang sinabi ng T       Sa may Paco Obando, doon ka ba pumunta?

kapatid mo sayo?
S       Hindi po.

S       Ang sabi niya, bakit daw may kasama kaming bata.

T       Saang parte ka ng Bulacan pumunta?

T       Ano naman ang naging sagot mo kay Imelda?

S       Malapit po sa may – Hindi ko na po matandaan yong
S       Sabi ko pinasyal lang po namin.
pinuntahan namin.

T       Hindi tinanong ni Imelda kung bakit pinasyal nyo ang bata, T       Malapit sa may?

kung may paalam yong bata doon sa kanyang magulang?

S       Papunta na po ng Obando, pero hindi nakarating doon.

S       Tinanong po.
T       Saan ka pumunta doon para maghanap ka ng trabaho?

T       Ano naman ang sinabi mo sa kanya?

ATTY. SOLUREN

S       Sinabi ko gusto ko lang makita si Rocky.

Already answered, Your Honor, that the place papunta ng Obando
T       Pero, ano ang sinabi mo noong tinanong kung may paalam pero hindi pa nakakarating sa Obando.

ang bata sa kanyang magulang, anong naging sagot mo sa STATE PROSECUTOR FONACIER

katanungan niya?
That is why I am asking.

S       Ang sabi niya baka daw pagalitan kami.

COURT

T       Ano naman ang naging sagot mo?

What place is that? Witness may answer.

Your Honor, may we asked (sic) the witness to be more responsive T       Anong detalyadong lugar?

with her answer.

S       Sa may Julo po.

COURT

T       Ano yong Julo?

What was the question, please?

S       Malapit po iyan sa Obando

Stenographer:

COURT

(Reading back the question)

Saang bayan ng Bulacan yon?

T       Noong tinanong ni Imelda kung may paalam ang bata sa

S       Yon lang po ang alam ko.18 (Emphasis supplied)

mga magulang, ano ang sagot mo?

Beyond a feeble excuse that she was in Obando in order to look

S       Ang sabi ko po hindi, walang paalam.

for employment, Castillo provides no other plausible reason why

T       Ano ang naging reaction ng iyong kapatid na si Imelda?
her presence at that place, at such an opportune time should not
S       Bakit daw hindi nagpaalam.16 (Emphasis supplied)
be taken against her as additional evidence of her guilt. To
Castillo testified that, during the period of Rocky’s detention she attribute this to coincidence, as Castillo would probably have us
called Rocky’s father, Mr. Cebrero, to wit:
do, taxes one’s credulity.

Q       What happened next Miss witness?

The same can be said of her inability to explain how the ransom
A       Tinawagan ko po ang mga Cebrero.
money was found in her possession when she was caught by
Q       Who of the Cebreros did you call up?
policemen in Dipolog. Castillo plainly contradicts herself on this

Page 10 of 19
point. In Castillo’s brief, she admitted going to the "pay-off" site on admitted on the witness stand. Even if we were to discredit
the day Mr. Cebrero was told to leave the ransom for Rocky’s Rocky’s testimony entirely, the facts of his kidnapping stand
release. Castillo admitted she found at the site a black plastic bag proven by no less than Castillo’s own admission on the witness
filled with money and brought it home.19  However in her testimony stand and in her brief.

before the trial court, she maintained that the first time she saw the With the evidence Castillo’s own testimony established, the
same plastic bag was when it mysteriously appeared in her prosecution’s witnesses did little more than corroborate what
luggage when she went to Dipolog:
Castillo herself had admitted. Since Castillo admitted in open court
Q       And thereafter, Miss witness, what happened next?
that she instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky even without the
A       Hinanap ko iyong mga kagamitan ko po, mam.
parents’ permission, we find her explanations futile. Her allegations
Q       And for what purpose you looked at your things, Miss of torture and of signing a sworn statement without counsel are
witness?
useless. After claiming to have been tortured into making her
A       Para ayusin po iyong mga kagamitan ko para sworn statement, logic would have it that Castillo should have
makapagpahinga na po ako, mam.
debunked the contents of that statement through her testimony.
Instead, she freely and voluntarily recounted events as she
Q       What happened next, Miss witness?

narrated them in her sworn statement. Moreover, there is no

A       May nakuha ako na isang plastic bag sa loob ng aking bag,
allegation that the trial court decided her guilt based on her sworn
mam.

statement. The trial court based its decision on the testimonies of

Q       And what is this plastic bag about, Miss witness?
all the witnesses, including Castillo’s.

A       May laman po na pera, mam.

In sum, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt
Q       And how much money was there in that plastic bag, Miss Castillo’s guilt.

witness?
Appellant Padayhag’s Liability

A       Hindi ko po alam.
The same cannot be said of Padayhag. Our review of the evidence
Q       And what did you observe about the money in the plastic on record shows that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhag’s
bag?
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A       Nagulat po ako, mam.

We reiterate the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens
Q       And why were you surprised?
the entire case for review on any question including those not
A        Hindi ko po kasi lubos na maisip na ang bag na aking raised by the parties.25  This becomes even more imperative in
dala dala ay may laman na isang malaking halaga na pera, cases where the penalty imposed is death.

mam.
Padayhag’s sole involvement in this entire episode is her act of
Q       And what did you do after learning that there was money fetching Rocky and bringing him to where Castillo was waiting for
inside your bag, Miss witness?
them. Padayhag then went strolling with the two, went to the
A       Pinabayaan ko na lang po at inaantay na may kumuha na house of Castillo’s sister together with Castillo and Rocky, and
lang po niyon sa akin mam.20 (Emphasis supplied)
then later left the house. From this fact alone, the prosecution
Castillo insists that she took Rocky simply because she missed would have us rule that Padayhag acted in conspiracy with
him, and wanted to spend time with him. At the same time, in her Castillo. The prosecution contends that without Padayhag’s help,
brief Castillo claims that what spurred her to take Rocky was her Castillo could not have abducted Rocky.

desire to get her unpaid wages from the Cebreros.21

We are not persuaded.

Castillo also points out that Rocky came along freely with them,
was not harmed, and was even cared for during his detention. This
argument is pointless. The essence of kidnapping is deprivation of
liberty. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offender
kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly.22  Where the
victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more
irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim.
Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way
There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag
acted in concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. To
hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must
be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and
definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without
any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter
through.26  Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the
commission of the crime itself.27

home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1)
detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under singularity of intent; and (2) unity in execution of an unlawful
such a situation, the child’s freedom remains at the mercy and objective. The two must concur. Performance of an act that
control of the abductor.
contributes to the goal of another is not enough. The act must be
Next, Castillo explains that she called Mr. Cebrero not to ask for motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor
ransom but to tell him that Rocky was with her and unharmed. simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy,
Castillo admitted that Mr. Cebrero pleaded with her not to harm unless proved to have been motivated by a common design.28

Rocky. Castillo failed to explain, however, why she did not inform Padayhag’s act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her
Mr. Cebrero of their exact whereabouts so that Mr. Cebrero could complicity with Castillo’s plan, a plan Padayhag did not even
fetch Rocky. Her failure to inform Mr. Cebrero clearly shows she know. Both appellants testified that Padayhag met Castillo only
kept Rocky in detention considering she called Mr. Cebrero several because Castillo told Padayhag that Padayhag’s boyfriend was
times while she had physical control over Rocky.
sick. It was precisely on the pretext that they were to visit
Castillo’s explanation that she decided to return Rocky only when Padayhag’s boyfriend that the two met. When they met, Padayhag
he was no longer sick is also implausible. In the first place, she realized that Castillo had deceived her:

failed to explain why she did not return the child the moment she Q       Why? (sic) Elizabeth Castillo fetched you on February 28,
found out he was sick. That would have been the more prudent 1995 and why did you decide to leave your employment?

course of action at that time. However, one day after the "pay-off" A       Kasi sabi po niya sa akin ang boyfriend ko raw ay maysakit,
on 4 March 1995, Rocky suddenly appeared by himself at the sir.

Cebreros’ home on 5 March 1995. Any reasonable person would Q       And could you tell us who is that boyfriend of yours?

conclude that the pay-off and the return of the child were related A       Si Jessie Mercader po, sir.

events. Castillo would have us attribute this to coincidence.

Q       And what is the address of Jessie Mercader, at that time,

Castillo would also have us believe that what prompted her February 28, 1995?

sudden departure for Dipolog, where she was eventually captured,

A       Sa Caloocan City po, sir.

was her inability to find employment in Manila. And yet Castillo

Q       And you said he was sick. What was his sickness?

does not explain why she tried to bring Padayhag along with her to
Dipolog.
ATTY. SOLUREN

Finally, Castillo points out that the prosecution coached Rocky’s Your Honor, that is misleading.

testimony. True, Rocky admitted he did not know the contents of COURT

the document he signed in front of the fiscal.23  Rocky also stated Reform your question.

that he was told to testify that Padayhag forced him to go with her, Q       Madam witness, you said that you were informed that your
and finally, that he must accuse both appellants as his abductors. boyfriend was sick. Did you go and see your boyfriend?

24 These admissions, damaging as they may sound, are of little use

A       Sumama po ako kay Elizabeth Castillo pero hindi na po kami
to appellants. The reason is simple. The facts to which Rocky’s natuloy pumunta doon, sir.

testimony pertains to are the very same facts Castillo herself Q       For what reason you did not go?

Page 11 of 19
A       Hindi po sinabi sa akin ni Elizabeth Castillo, sir.
A       Pinaalis niya po ako doon sa pinagtratrabahuan ko sa may
Q       So, you did not come to find out what was the sickness of Dagat Dagatan, Your Honor.

your boyfriend?
COURT

A       Hindi na po sir.
Alam mo ba kung ilang buwan mayroon ang isang taon?

Q       Are we made to understand, madam witness, when you left A       Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.

your employer on 28 February 1995 for the reason that your COURT

boyfriend was sick, you did not actually go and see your Pero alam mo ang mga buwan, Enero, Pebrero.. alam mo iyon?

boyfriend?
A       Opo, Your Honor.

A       Opo, sir.29
COURT

After the two spent the day together, Castillo beseeched Padayhag Sige nga sabihin mo nga sa akin kung anu-ano ang mga buwan?

to fetch Rocky citing as reason her love for the child and a desire A       Enero, Pebrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo, Hulyo, Agosto,
to spend time with the boy. Padayhag is a young lass from the Setyembre, Oktubre, Nobyembre at Disyembre po, Your Honor.31

province who only finished Grade Two. Padayhag was thus easily
Padayhag’s confusion in the way she answered the questions
misled by the more worldly Castillo. Padayhag’s testimony reveals
propounded to her only highlights the fact that she was not aware
her naiveté:

of Castillo’s plans and was vulnerable to the latter’s manipulation.

COURT
Her straightforward and wide-eyed admission of facts that
Q       Ano ang sinabi sa iyo bakit mo susunduin ang bata?
incriminate her demonstrate a level of honesty that can only be
A       Namimiss na raw po niya iyong bata at nais niyang makita, found in those who do not know the art of deceit. Far from a cold
Your Honor.
and calculating mind, Padayhag strikes us as one whose
COURT
innocence often leaves her at the mercy of her more worldly peers.
Tapos ikaw ang pinasundo niya doon sa bata?
It is clear that she acted with the full belief that Castillo was doing
A       Opo, Your Honor.
nothing wrong. Whatever moved her to do what Castillo asked of
COURT
her is up for speculation. What matters is that her motivation in
Tapos noon dalhin sa Caloocan, ano pa, sinabi pa rin niya fetching Rocky was not to kidnap the boy. To impose criminal
namimiss niya ang bata ganoon uli ang sinabi niya sa iyo?
liability, the law requires that there be intentional participation in
the criminal act,32  not the unwitting cooperation of a deceived
A       Wala na po siyang sinabi sa akin, Your Honor.

individual.

COURT

In its brief the prosecution itself cites that any inquiry as to the
Hindi ka ba nakahalata na may mali doon sa pangyayaring iyon?

liability of an individual as a conspirator should focus on all

A       Ang pagkakaalam ko po ay ipapasyal lamang niya ang bata, acts  before,  during  and  after  the commission of the crime.33  We
Your Honor.
have done precisely that, and it is precisely why we rule for her
Q       Sa Caloocan?
innocence. After her stroll with Castillo and Rocky, she left when
A       Opo, Your Honor.
Castillo brought the boy to her sister’s house in Caloocan.34  She
COURT
never visited nor contacted Castillo afterwards. She remained at
Tapos umalis ka na pagkatapos ninyong kumain doon ng kapatid her house and refused to go with Castillo when the latter suddenly
niya?
tried to coax her to go to Dipolog. None of the money used as
A       Opo, Your Honor.
ransom was found in her possession. Her involvement in the "pay-
COURT
off" was never established. The testimony of two prosecution
Ipinasyal ba niya ang bata?
witnesses, Sgt. De Lena and Sgt. Iglesias, claiming that Padayhag
was with Castillo when the latter picked up the ransom in Obando,
A       Hindi ko na po alam kasi umalis nga po pagkatapos namin
is contradicted by Castillo’s admission in open court that she
kumain, Your Honor.

brought along a certain "Mila" and not Padayhag.35 In addition, the

COURT

testimonies of these two police officers suffer from their failure to

Kailan niya sinabi sa iyo na ibabalik ang bata?
explain how they suddenly lost track of the two women who took
A       Wala po siyang sinabi kung kailan, Your Honor.
the ransom in front of their very eyes.

COURT
All these circumstances illustrate the absence of any hint of
Ganoon ba ang alam mo sa pamamasyal?
conspiracy. We also find that the prosecution failed to prove
A       Siya naman po ang nagyaya, Your Honor.30
Padayhag’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In  People v.
Her ignorance and susceptibility to confusion becomes more Gonzales36 we held:

evident in the following exchange:

In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and
COURT
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
Kailan ka ba umalis kay Mr. Julito Luwagon?
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
A       Hindi ko pa matandaan, Your Honor.
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the
COURT
test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

Pero sabi mo kanina ay pitong buwan ka doon?

Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption
A       Opo pitong buwan ako roon pero hindi ko po matandaan
of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both
kung anong buwan, Your Honor.

constitutional and criminal law.37  Thus, the prosecution has the

ATTY. SOLUREN

burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt.38  Every

She only finished Grade II, Your Honor.
vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed.39  The
COURT
defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict.
Yes I know it but she would know that she works for seven (7) 40  Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case
months. Alam mo ba na December 1994 ka nagsimula beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak
mangamuhan kay Julito Luwagon?
at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient.

A       Opo, Your Honor.

The failure to prove Padayhag’s involvement as a conspirator
COURT
reveals how tenuous the evidence is linking her to the crime.
Enero, Pebrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo at Hulyo tama ba iyon?
Padayhag’s culpability hinges on how her act of fetching Rocky
A       Opo, Your Honor.
and bringing him to Castillo formed part of a concerted effort to
COURT
kidnap the child. The act of fetching the boy, by itself, does not
Papaano nangyari noong Enero 1995 ikaw ay nagtratrabaho na constitute a criminal offense. By itself, it is not even sufficient to
kay Lulu Sablan?
make her an accomplice. For a person to be considered an
accomplice there must be a community of design, that is, knowing
A       Itinuro po sa akin ni Elizabeth Castillo na mag-apply ng
the criminal design of the principal, the co-accused concurs with
trabaho sa may BF Homes, Your Honor.

the latter. Mere commission of an act which aids the perpetrator is

COURT

not enough. As we explained in People v. Cual:41

Kailan kayo nagkita nitong si Elizabeth Castillo?

The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly

A       Noong January lang po, Your Honor.
rendered, which cannot exist without the previous cognizance of
COURT
the criminal act intended to be executed. It is therefore required in
Saan kayo nagkita?

Page 12 of 19
order to be liable as an accomplice, that the accused must unite
with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation.
five days from notice, compliance with this Decision.
There was therefore a need for clear and convincing proof that this
single act was committed to kidnap the child. The prosecution
failed to prove this. Padayhag explained that Castillo coaxed her
into fetching Rocky through another deception and by playing on
her feelings of sympathy and friendship. Castillo corroborated this
on the witness stand. The prosecution failed to prove otherwise.
SO ORDERED.
The facts as established show that the only thing Castillo told
Padayhag was to fetch Rocky because Castillo missed her former
ward. Upon reaching the house of the Cebreros, the boy’s nanny
handed over to Padayhag the child. There is no allegation or
evidence that Padayhag knew the criminal plan of Castillo. Neither
is there any hint that Castillo told Padayhag to abduct the boy, or
to misrepresent herself or use means that would have led
Padayhag to suspect that Castillo had some criminal design. Nor
was there any proof that Padayhag knew that Castillo had no
permission from the boy’s parents. The appearance of the boy
itself, newly bathed and dressed for a stroll, would have led
Padayhag to believe whatever story Castillo contrived to ask her in
fetching the boy.
W H E R E F O R E , t h e C o u r t  G R A N T S  t h e p e t i t i o n s
A criminal conviction must stand on the strength of the evidence
presented by the prosecution, and not on the weakness of the
defense of the accused. The prosecution should have done more
to establish Padayhag’s guilt. Instead, the prosecution left a lot of
room for other possible scenarios besides her guilt. This is a fatal
error. The presumption of innocence imposes a rule of evidence, a
degree of proof that demands no less than total compliance. As
we explained in United States v. Reyes:42
petitioners; and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.
The presumption of innocence can be overborne only by proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which means proof, to the
satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of
innocence, as  precludes every reasonable hypothesis  except
that which it is given to support. It is not sufficient for the proof
to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact
charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish
the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty- a
certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience
of those who are to act upon it. (Emphasis supplied)
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE SHALL  NOT BE REVIEWABLE  BY
On the other hand, we find Padayhag’s explanation sufficiently
supported by circumstances aside from Castillo’s testimony.
Padayhag’s acts before, during and after the crime all point to the
conclusion that she was no more than an unwitting tool of Castillo.
Castillo misled her into a meeting. Castillo again misled her into
fetching Rocky. Castillo never met or contacted her after the day of
Rocky’s abduction. Castillo also testified that she did not bring
Padayhag along with her when she went to Obando on the day
that coincided with the "pay-off." The only circumstance linking
Padayhag to that event is the shaky account of two police officers
who admitted that their quarry inexplicably disappeared before
their very eyes. Even the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty, by itself, cannot prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence.43 Nothing links Padayhag
to the demand for ransom. She never received any part of the
ransom, precisely because she did not even know it existed.
Penalty and Damages
WITHDRAWN FROM THE PHILIPPINE CHARITY
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,44  the penalty of
death is imposed upon proof that the kidnapping was committed
to extort ransom from the victim or any other person. We find that
the prosecution has established Castillo’s guilt for this crime
beyond reasonable doubt. However, Castillo’s pecuniary liability
must be modified to conform with jurisprudence. The award of
exemplary damages must be deleted in the absence of any
aggravating circumstance. Mr. Cebrero testified that their family
suffered serious anxiety at the possibility of not seeing Rocky
again.45 The pain and anguish they experienced justifies the award
of moral damages. However, we reduce the trial court’s award of
moral damages to P100,000 in line with current jurisprudence.46
WHEREFORE,  the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque, Branch 260, National Capital Judicial Region, in
Criminal Case No. 95-86 convicting appellant Elizabeth Castillo is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Elizabeth Castillo is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the victim
P100,000 as moral damages. The award for exemplary damages is
deleted for lack of legal basis. The trial court’s Decision convicting
appellant Evangeline Padayhag is REVERSED. We ACQUIT
Evangeline Padayhag and order her immediate RELEASE from
confinement unless held for another lawful cause. The Director of
Page 13 of 19
the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to report to the Court, within
In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, upon finality of
this decision, let certified true copies of the records of this case be
forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible
exercise of the pardoning power.
G.R. No. 220598
April 18, 2017
GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner, 

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
(First Division), Respondents
R E S O L U T I O N
BERSAMIN,, J.:
On July 19, 2016, the Court promulgated its decision, disposing:
for certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions issued in
Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the  Sandiganbayan  on
April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015;  GRANTSthe petitioners'
respective demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES Criminal Case No.
SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners  GLORIAMACAPAGAL-
A R R O Y O  a n d  B E N I G N O A G U A S  f o r i n s u ffi c i e n c y o f
evidence;  ORDERS  the immediate release from detention of said
SO ORDERED. 1
On August 3, 2016, the State, through the Office of the
Ombudsman, has moved for the reconsideration of the decision,
submitting that:
I. THIS HONORABLE COURT'S GIVING DUE COURSE TO A
CERTIORARI ACTION ASSAILING AN INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER DENYING DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE  VIOLA
TES  RULE 119, SECTION 23  OF THE RULES OF COURT,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER DENYING THE
APPEAL OR BY CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERRORS
WHICH AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OR DEPRIVATION OF THE
STATE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
A. THE DECISION REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN THE
PROSECUTION OF PLUNDER,  VIZ.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE
MAIN PLUNDERER  AND  PERSONAL BENEFIT TO HIM/
HER, BOTH OF WHICH ARE NOT PROVIDED IN THE TEXT OF
REPUBLIC ACT (R.A.) NO. 7080.
B. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION WAS
NOT FULLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE  IRREGULARITIES  IN THE CONFIDENTIAL/
INTELLIGENCE FUND (CIF) DISBURSEMENT PROCESS,
Q U E S T I O N A B L E P R A C T I C E O F  C O - M I N G L I N G O F
FUNDSAND  AGUAS' REPORTS  TO THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA) THAT BULK OF THE PHP365,997,915.00
SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE'S (PCSO) CIF WERE  DIVERTED TO
THE ARROYO-HEADED OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
C. ARROYO AND AGUAS, BY INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION, IN CONSPIRACY WITH THEIR COACCUSED
IN SB-12-CRM-0174, COMMITTED PLUNDER VIA· A
COMPLEX ILLEGAL SCHEME WHICH DEFRAUDED PCSO IN
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PESOS.
D. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ELEMENTS OF PLUNDER
WERE NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PEOPLE SHOWS, BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT ARROYO, AGUAS AND THEIR
C O A C C U S E D I N S B - 1 2 - C R M - 0 1 7 4 A R E G U I LT Y O F
MALVERSATION.2
In contrast, the petitioners submit that the decision has effectively
barred the consideration and granting of the motion for
reconsideration of the State because doing so would amount to
the re-prosecution or revival of the charge against them despite
their acquittal, and would thereby violate the constitutional
proscription against double jeopardy.
Petitioner Gloria M. Macapagal-Arroyo (Arroyo) points out that the
State miserably failed to prove the  corpus delicti  of plunder; that
the Court correctly required the identification of the main plunderer
as well as personal benefit on the part of the raider of the public
treasury to enable the successful prosecution of the crime of Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
plunder; that the State did not prove the conspiracy that justified settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
her inclusion in the charge; that to sustain the case for demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
malversation against her, in lieu of plunder, would violate her right there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
to be informed of the accusation against her because the or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
information did not necessarily include the crime of malversation; instrumentality of the Government. The exercise of this power
and that even if the information did so, the constitutional to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
prohibition against double jeopardy already barred the re-opening excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
of the case for that purpose.
instrumentality of the Government cannot be thwarted by rules
Petitioner Benigno B. Aguas echoes the contentions of Arroyo in of procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the
urging the Com1 to deny the motion for reconsideration.
convenience of one side. This is because the Court has the
In reply, the State avers that the prohibition against double bounden constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of
jeopardy does not apply because it was denied its day in court, discretion  whenever  and  wherever  it is committed. Thus,
thereby rendering the decision void; that the Court should re- notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the
examine the facts and pieces of evidence in order to find the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the
petitioners guilty as charged; and that the allegations of the accused could avail themselves of the remedy
information sufficiently included all that was necessary to fully of  certiorari  when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of
inform the petitioners of the accusations against them.
discretion. As we shall soon show, the  Sandiganbayan  as the
Ruling of the Court
trial court was guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it
capriciously denied the demurrers to evidence despite the
The Court  DENIES  the motion for reconsideration for its lack of
absence of competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the
merit.

indictment for plunder, and despite the absence of the factual

To start with, the State argues' that the consolidated petitions
bases to expect a guilty verdict.3

for  certiorari  were improper remedies in light of Section 23, Rule

We reiterate the foregoing resolution, and stress that the
119 of the  Rules of Court  expressly prohibiting the review of the
prohibition contained in Section 23, Rule 119 of the  Rules of
denial of their demurrer prior to the judgment in the case either by
Court is not an insuperable obstacle to the review by the Court of
appeal or by  certiorari;  that the Court has thereby limited its own
the denial of the demurrer to evidence through certiorari. We have
power, which should necessarily prevent the giving of due course
had many rulings to that effect in the past. For instance, in Nicolas
to the petitions for  certiorari,  as well as the undoing of the order
v. Sandiganbayan,4the Court expressly ruled that the petition
denying the petitioners' demurrer to evidence; that the proper
for  certiorari  was the proper remedy to assail the denial of the
remedy under the Rules of Court was for the petitioners to proceed
demurrer to evidence that was tainted with grave abuse of
to trial and to present their evidence-in-chief thereat; and that even
discretion or excess of jurisdiction, or oppressive exercise of
if there had been grave abuse of discretion attending the denial,
judicial authority.

the Court's  certiorari  powers should be exercised only upon the

petitioners' compliance with the stringent requirements of Rule 65, Secondly, the State submits that its right to due process was
particularly with the requirement that there be no plain, speedy or violated because the decision imposed additional elements for
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which they did not plunder that neither ' Republic Act No. 7080 nor jurisprudence had
establish.
theretofore required,  i.e.,  the identification of the main plunderer,
and personal benefit on the part of the accused committing the
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, pertinently provides:

predicate crime of raid on the public treasury. The State complains

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. – xxx

that it was not given the opportunity to establish such additional

x x x x
elements; that the imposition of new elements fu1iher amounted to
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file judicial legislation in violation of the doctrine of separation of
demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be powers; that the Court nitpicked on the different infirmities of the
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (n)
information despite the issue revolving only around the sufficiency
The argument of the State, which is really a repetition of its earlier of the evidence; and that it established all the elements of plunder
submission, was squarely resolved in the decision, as follows:
beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court holds that it should take cognizance of the petitions The State cites the plain meaning rule to highlight that the crime of
for  certiorari  because the  Sandiganbayan,  as shall shortly be plunder did not require personal benefit on the part of the raider of
demonstrated, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or the public treasury. It insists that the definition of  raids on the
excess of jurisdiction.
public treasury,  conformably with the plain meaning rule, is the
The special civil action for  certiorari  is generally not proper to taking of public money through fraudulent or unlawful means, and
assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial court because such definition does not require enjoyment or personal benefit on
of the availability of another remedy in the ordinary course of law. the part of plunderer or on the part of any of his co-conspirators
Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the  Rules of Court  expressly for them to be convicted for plunder.

provides that "the order denying the motion for leave of court to The submissions of the State are unfounded.

file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment." It is not an
insuperable obstacle to this action, however, that the denial of the
demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was an interlocutory order
that did not terminate the proceedings, and the proper recourse of
The requirements for the identification of the main plunderer and
for personal benefit in the predicate act of  raids on the public
treasury  have been written in R.A. No. 7080 itself as well as
embedded in pertinent jurisprudence. This we made clear in the
decision, as follows:

the demurring accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their A perusal of the information suggests that what the Prosecution
conviction they may then appeal the conviction, and assign the sought to show was an implied conspiracy to commit plunder
denial as among the errors to be reviewed. Indeed, it is doctrinal among all of the accused on the basis of their collective actions
that the situations in which the writ of certiorari may issue should prior to, during and after the implied agreement. It is notable that
not be limited, because to do so -
the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the
x x x would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or
So wide is the discretion of the com1 that authority is not wanting a chain conspiracy.

to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition This was another fatal flaw of the Prosecution.

or mandamus. In the exercise of oursuperintending control over

In its present version, under which the petitioners were charged,
other courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) states:

each particular case 'as the ends of justice may require.' So it

Section 2.  Definition of the Crime of Plunder: Penalties.  - Any
is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a
public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of
substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.

his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business

The Constitution itself has imposed upon the Court and the other
associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
courts of justice the duty to correct errors of jurisdiction as a result
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
of capricious, arbitrary, whimsical and despotic exercise of
overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the
discretion by expressly incorporating in Section 1 of Article VIII the
aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
following provision:

(₱50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme be punished by  reclusion perpetua  to death. Any person who
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Page 14 of 19
participated with the said public officer in the commission of an
offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be
punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the
degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal
Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any
and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and
assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from
the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. [As
Amended by Section 12, Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death
Penalty Law)]
the identification in the information of such public official as the
Section l(d) of Republic Act No. 7080 provides:
main plunderer among the several individuals thus charged is
Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
logically necessary under the law itself. In particular reference to
x x x x
Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174, the individuals charged
d.  "Ill-gotten wealth"  means any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview
of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly
through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the following
means or similar schemes:
The phrase raids on the public treasury as used in Section 1 (d) of
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation
of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
objective meaning of the phrase, the act of raiding the public
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share,
percentage, kickbacks or any/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of the office or
position of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets
belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any
shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation
including the promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking;
public funds or raids on the public treasury.
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies
or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and
orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests;
or
on the public treasury, viz.:
6. By taking undue advantage of official positi0n, authority,
relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice
The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer
must be identified as the one who amassed, acquired or
accumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that
plunder is committed by any public officer who, by himself or
in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth
in the aggregate amount or total value of at least
₱50,000,000.00 through a  combination  or  series  of overt
criminal acts as described in Section l(d) hereof. Surely, the
law requires in the criminal charge for plunder against several
individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-
conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordim1tes or
other persons. In other words, the allegation of the wheel
conspiracy or express conspiracy in the information was
appropriate because the main plunderer would then be
identified in either manner. Of course, implied conspiracy
could also identify the main plunderer, but that fact must be
properly alleged and duly proven by the Prosecution.
word or phrase is found or with which it is associated. Verily, a
T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y  E s t r a d a v .
Sandiganbayan,  where the Court explained the nature of the
conspiracy charge and the necessity for the main plunderer for
whose benefit the amassment, accumulation and acquisition was
made, thus:
property as if it were one's own; to misappropriate means to own,
There is no denying the fact that the "plunder of an entire nation
resulting in material damage to the national economy" is made up
of a complex and manifold network of crimes. In the crime of
plunder, therefore, different parties may be united by a common
purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused and their
different criminal acts have a commonality - to help the former
President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the
different participation of each accused in the conspiracy.  The
gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each
accused agreed to receive protection money from illegal gambling,
that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that
each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of
Page 15 of 19
Belle Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor
that each unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and
kickbacks; rather,  it is that each of them, by their individual
acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of
and/or for former President Estrada.  5  [bold underscoring
supplied for emphasis]
Indeed, because plunder is a crime that only a public official can
commit by amassing, accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth
in the aggregate amount or total value of at least ₱50,000,000.00,
therein - including the petitioners - were 10 public officials; hence,
it was only proper to identify the main plunderer or
plunderers  among the 10 accused  who herself or himself had
amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth with the total
value of at least ₱50,000,000.00.
R. A. No. 7080 is itself ambiguous. In order to ascertain the
treasury cannot be divided into parts. This is to differentiate the
predicate act of  raids on the public treasury  from other offenses
involving property, like robbery, theft, or  estafa.  Considering that
R.A. No. 7080 does not expressly define this predicate act, the
Court has necessarily resorted to statutory construction. In so
doing, the Court did not adopt the State's submission that
personal benefit on the part of the accused need not be alleged
and shown because doing so would have defeated the clear intent
of the law itself,6 which was to punish the amassing, accumulating,
or acquiring of ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least ₱150,000,000.00 by any combination or series of
acts of misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of
As the decision has observed, the rules of statutory construction
as well as the deliberations of Congress indicated the intent of
Congress to require personal benefit for the predicate act of raids
The phrase raids on the public treasury is found in Section 1 (d) of
R.A. No. 7080, which provides:
Section l .Definition of Terms. – xxx
x x x x
d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, prope1iy, business enterprise
or material possession of any person within the purview of Section
Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business
associates by any combination or series of the following means or
similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation
of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
x x x x
To discern the proper import of the phrase raids on the public
treasury,  the key is to look at the accompanying
words:  misappropriation, conversion, misuse  or  malversation
of public funds. This process is conformable with the maxim of
statutory construction  noscitur a sociis,  by which the correct
construction of a particular word or phrase that is ambiguous
in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings may be
made by considering the company of the words in which the
word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with
other words or phrases, and its meaning may, therefore, be
modified or restricted by the latter.
To convert  connotes the act of using or disposing of another's
to take something for one's own benefit;  misuse  means "a good,
substance, privilege, or right used improperly, unforcsccably, or
not as intended;" and malversation occurs when "any public officer
who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds, or property, wholly or partially." The common thread that
binds all the four terms together is that the public officer used the
property taken. Considering that  raids on the public treasury  is in
the company of the four other terms that require the use of the
property taken, the phrase  raids on the public treasury  similarly
requires such use of the property taken. Accordingly,
the  Sandiganbayan  gravely erred in contending that the mere Fourthly, in accenting certain inadequacies of the allegations of the
accumulation and gathering constituted the forbidden act of raids information, the Court did not engage in purposeless nitpicking,
on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis, and did not digress from the primary task of determining the
raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State against the
taken impliedly for his personal benefit.7
petitioners. What the Court thereby intended to achieve was to
The Prosecution asserts that the Senate deliberations highlight what would have been relevant in the proper prosecution
removed  personal benefit  as a requirement for plunder. In not of plunder and thus enable itself to discern and determine whether
requiring personal benefit, the Sandiganbayan quoted the following the evidence of guilt was sufficient or not. In fact, the Court
exchanges between Senator Enrile and Senator Tafiada, viz.:
categorically clarified that in discussing the essential need for the
Senator Enrile. The word here, Mr. President, "such public officer identification of the main plunderer it was not harping on the
or person who conspired or knowingly benefited". One does not sufficiency of the information, but was only enabling itself to
have to conspire or rescheme. The only element needed is that search for and to find the relevant proof that unequivocally showed
he "knowingly benefited". A candidate for the Senate for instance, petitioner Arroyo as the "mastermind" - which was how the
who received a political contribution from a plunderer, knowing Sandiganbayan had characterized her participation - in the context
that the contributor is a plunderer and therefore, he knowingly of the implied conspiracy alleged in the information. But the search
benefited from the plunder, would he also suffer the penalty, Mr. came to naught, for the information contained nothing that averred
President, for life imprisonment?
her commission of the overt act necessary to implicate her in the
Senator Tafiada. In the committee amendments, Mr. President, we supposed conspiracy to commit the crime of plunder. Indeed, the
have deleted these lines 1 to 4 and part of line 5, on page 3. But, in Court assiduously searched for but did not find the sufficient
a way, Mr. President, it is good that the Gentleman is bringing out incriminatory evidence against the petitioners. Hence, the
these questions, I believe that under the examples he has given, Sandiganbayan capriciously and oppressively denied their
the Court will have to...
demurrers to evidence.

Senator Enrile. How about the wife, Mr. President, he may not Fifthly, the State posits that it established at least a case for
agree with the plunderer to plunder the country but because she is malversation against the petitioners.

a dutiful wife or a faithful husband, she has to keep her or his vow Malversation is defined and punished under Article 217 of
of fidelity to the spouse. And, of course, she enjoys the benefits the Revised Penal Code, which reads thusly:

out of the plunder. Would the Gentleman now impute to her or him Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption
the crime of plunder simply because she or he knowingly benefited of malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of
out of the fruits of the plunder and, therefore, he must suffer or he his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
must suffer the penalty of life imprisonment?
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall
The President. That was stricken out already in the Committee consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any
amendment.
other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or
Senator Tañada. Yes, Mr. President. Lines 1 to 4 and part of line 5 partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
were stricken out in the Committee amendment. But, as I said, the malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:

examples of the Minority Floor Leader are still worth spreading 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
the  Record.  And, I believe that in those examples, the Court will periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or
have just to take into consideration all the other circumstances malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.

prevailing in the case and the evidence that will be submitted.

2. The penalty of  prision mayor  in its minimum and medium
The President. In any event, 'knowingly benefited' has already periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos
been stricken off."
but does not exceed six thousand pesos.

The exchanges between Senator Enrile and Senator Tañada reveal, 3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
therefore, that what was removed from the coverage of the bill and temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more
the final version that eventually became the law was a person who than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.

was not the main plunderer or a co-conspirator, but one who 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum
personally benefited from the plunderers' action. The requirement periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand
of personal benefit on the part of the main plunderer or his co- pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount
conspirators by virtue of their plunder was not removed.
exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be  reclusion temporal  in its
As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

money went but, more importantly, that GMA and Aguas had
personally benefited from the same. Hence, the Prosecution did
not prove the predicate act of raids on the public treasury beyond
reasonable doubt. 8
property embezzled.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the
penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the
amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the

Thirdly, the State contends that the Court did not appreciate the
totality of its evidence, particularly the different irregularities
committed in the disbursement of the PCSO funds,  i.e.,  the
commingling of funds, the non-compliance with LOI No. 1282, and
the unilateral approval of the disbursements. Such totality, coupled
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public
funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by
any duly authorized officer, shall be  prima facie  evidence that he
has put such missing funds or property to personal use. (As
amended by RA 1060).

with the fact of the petitioners' indispensable cooperation in the The elements of malversation are that: (a) the offender is an
pilfering of public funds, showed the existence of the conspiracy accountable public officer; (b) he/she is responsible for the
to commit plunder among all of the accused.
misappropriation of public funds or property through intent or
The contention lacks basis.
negligence; and (c) he/she has custody of and received such funds
As can be readily seen from the decision, the Court expressly and property by reason of his/her office. 10

granted the petitioners' respective demurrers to evidence and The information in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-017411 avers:

dismissed the plunder case against them for insufficiency of The undersigned Assistant Ombudsman and Graft Investigation
evidence because:
and Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby
x x x the  Sandiganbayan  as the trial court was guilty of grave accuse GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ROSARIO C. URIARTE,
abuse of discretion when it capriciously denied the demurrers to SERGIO O. VALENCIA, MANUEL L. MORATO, JOSE R. TARUC V,
evidence  despite the absence of competent and sufficient RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, MA. FATIMA AS. VALDES, BENIGNO
evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder, and despite the B. AGUAS, REYNALDO A. VILLAR and NILDA B. PLARAS, of the
absence of the factual bases to expect a guilty verdict. 9
crime of PLUNDER, as defined by, and penalized under Section 2
Such disposition of the Court fully took into consideration  all  the of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659,
evidence adduced against the petitioners. We need not rehash our committed, as follows:

review of the evidence thus adduced, for it is enough simply to That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or
stress that the Prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines,
plunder - that any or all of the accused public officials, particularly and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
petitioner Arroyo, had amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill- GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, then the President of the
gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Philippines, ROSARIO C. URIARTE, then General Manager and
₱50,000,000.00.
Vice Chairman, SERGIO 0. VALENCIA, then Chairman of the Board
of Directors, MANUEL L. MORA TO, JOSE R. TARUC V,

Page 16 of 19
RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, MA. FATIMA AS. VALDES, then
members of the Board of Directors, BENIGNO B. AGUAS, then
Budget and Accounts Manager, all of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), REYNALDO A. VILLAR, then
Chairman, and NILDA B. PLARAS, then Head of Intelligence/
Confidential Fund Fraud Audit Unit, both of the Commission on
Audit, all public officers committing the offense in relation to their
respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective
official positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence,
conniving, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally 'amass,, accumulate
and/or acquire directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount or total value of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE
MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less,
through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts,
or similar schemes or means, described as follows:
would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double
(a) diverting in several instances, funds from the operating budget
of PCSO to its Confidential/Intelligence Fund that could be
accessed and withdrawn at any time with minimal restrictions, and
converting, misusing, and/or illegally conveying or transferring the
proceeds drawn from said fund in the aforementioned sum, also in
several instances, to themselves, in the guise of fictitious
expenditures, for their personal gain and benefit;
a second prosecution for the same offense after
(b) raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, in
several instances, the above-mentioned amount from the
Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's accounts, and or
unlawfully transferring or conveying the same into their possession
and control through irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and
fictitious expenditures; and
punished for a particular crime, principles of fairness and
(c) taking advantage of their respective official positions, authority,
relationships, connections or influence, in several instances, to
unjustly enrich themselves in the aforementioned sum, at the
expense of, and the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people
and the Republic of the Philippines.
acquitted of an offense, the Clause guarantees that the State
CONTRARY TO LAW.
shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict
In thereby averring the predicate act of malversation, the State did
not sufficiently allege the aforementioned essential elements of
malversation in the information. The omission from the information
of factual details descriptive of the aforementioned elements of
malversation highlighted the insufficiency of the allegations.
Consequently, the State's position is entirely unfounded.
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-188 (1957).
Lastly, the petitioners insist that the consideration and granting of
the motion for reconsideration of the State can amount to a
violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy
because their acquittal under the decision was a prior jeopardy
within the context of Section 21, Article III  (Bill of Rights)  of the
1987 Constitution, to wit:
Cas. 1287 (No. 15,204) (CCD Mass. 1834) (Story, J.).  It was not
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
(Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
The insistence of the petitioners is fully warranted. Indeed, the
consideration and granting of the motion for reconsideration of the
State will amount to the violation of the constitutional guarantee
against double jeopardy.
The Court's consequential dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-12-
C R M - 0 1 7 4 a s t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s  f o r i n s u ffi c i e n c y o f
evidence  amounted to their  acquittal  of the crime of plunder
charged against them. In People v. Tan, 12the Court shows why:
SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L.
In People v. Sandiganbayan, this Com1 explained the general rule
that the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal
and is, thus, final and unappealable, to wit:
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at
bar, is  ''filed after tile prosecution had rested its case,"  and
when the same is granted, it calls "for an appreciation of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to
warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in
a  dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an
acquittal of the accused." Such dismissal of a criminal case by
the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to
do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The
verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there.
L. Tan (Steven) were married.3  Out of this union, two female
x x x x
children were born, Kyra Danielle4 and Kristen Denise.5 On January
The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions.
In  People v. Laguio, Jr.,  this Court stated that the only instance
when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with
grave abuse of discretion, thus:
Page 17 of 19
... The only instance when double ,jeopardy will not attach is when
the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was
denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a
sham. However, while  certiorari  may be availed of to correct an
erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary
proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very
power to dispense justice. 13
The constitutional prohibition against placing a person under
double jeopardy for the same offense bars not only a new and
independent prosecution but also an appeal in the same action
after jeopardy had attached.  14  As such, every  acquittal  becomes
final  immediately upon promulgation  and cannot be recalled for
correction or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately
final, granting the State's motion for reconsideration in this case
jeopardy because it would effectively reopen the prosecution and
subject the petitioners to a second jeopardy despite their acquittal.
It is cogent to remind in this regard that the Constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy provides to the accused three
related protections, specifically:  protection against a second
prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; protection against
conviction;  and  protection against multiple punishments for the
same offense.  15The rationale for the three protections is
expounded in United States v. Wilson: 16
The interests underlying these three protections arc quite
similar. When a defendant has been once convicted and
finality require that he not be subjected to the possibility of
further punishment by being again tried or sentenced for the
same offense.Ex pa rte Lange,  18 Wall 163 (1874);  In re
Nielsen,  131 U.S. 176 (1889).  When a defendant has been
him,
"thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and
ordeal, and compelling him to live in a continuing state of
anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility
that, even though innocent, he may be found guilty."
The policy of avoiding multiple trials has been regarded as so
important that exceptions to the principle have been only
grudgingly allowed. Initially, a new trial was thought to be
unavailable after appeal, whether requested by the
prosecution or the defendant. See United States v. Gibert, 25 F.
until 1896 that it was made clear that a defendant could seek a
new trial after conviction, even though the Government
enjoyed no similar right.  United States v. Ball,  163 U.S. 662.
WHEREFORE, the Court  DENIES  the motion for reconsideration
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 168852           September 30, 2008
SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN, Petitioner, 

vs.

TAN, Respondents.*
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on  Certiorari  under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution1 dated March 7,
2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City in
Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 and the RTC Resolution2 dated July 11,
2 0 0 5 w h i c h d e n i e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s Ve r i fi e d M o t i o n f o r
Reconsideration.
The factual background of the case:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven
12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a
Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective
Order (TPO)6  against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses
Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC.
She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were
causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the
violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i)7  of suppletory application of the RPC, thus:

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,8  otherwise known as the "Anti- SEC. 47.  Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act,
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."
the  Revised Penal Code  and other applicable laws, shall
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice9  granting have suppletory application. (Emphasis supplied)

petitioner's prayer for a TPO.

Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:

On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. –
Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order  Ad Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
Cautelam and Comment on the Petition,10 contending that the RTC special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code.  This
lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
should specially provide the contrary. (Emphasis supplied)

On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed a Comment on Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be
Opposition11  to respondents' Motion to Dismiss arguing that applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
respondents were covered by R.A. No. 9262 under a liberal special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is
interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the protection and safety silent on a particular matter.

of victims of violence.
Thus, in People v. Moreno,18  the Court applied suppletorily the
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution12  dismissing the provision on subsidiary penalty under Article 39 of the RPC to
case as to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in- cases of violations of Act No. 3992, otherwise known as the
law of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as "Revised Motor Vehicle Law," noting that the special law did not
respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law contain any provision that the defendant could be sentenced with
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius."13
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed her Verified Motion for In People v. Li Wai Cheung,19  the Court applied suppletorily the
Reconsideration14  contending that the doctrine of necessary rules on the service of sentences provided in Article 70 of the RPC
implication should be applied in the broader interests of in favor of the accused who was found guilty of multiple violations
substantial justice and due process.
of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment on the Verified of 1972," considering the lack of similar rules under the special
Motion for Reconsideration15  arguing that petitioner's liberal law.

construction unduly broadened the provisions of R.A. No. 9262 In People v. Chowdury,20 the Court applied suppletorily Articles 17,
since the relationship between the offender and the alleged victim 18 and 19 of the RPC to define the words "principal,"
was an essential condition for the application of R.A. No. 9262.
"accomplices" and "accessories" under R.A. No. 8042, otherwise
On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution16  denying known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
petitioner's
1995," because said words were not defined therein, although the
Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned that to special law referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons
include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would liable for the crime of illegal recruitment.

be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.

In Yu v. People,21 the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on
Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law, to wit:
subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the RPC to  Batas
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO & Pambansa (B.P.)  Blg. 22, otherwise known as the "Bouncing
JUANITA, PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA, MAY BE INCLUDED IN Checks Law," noting the absence of an express provision on
THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, subsidiary imprisonment in said special law.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262, OTHERWISE Most recently, in  Ladonga v. People,22  the Court applied
KNOWN AS THE "ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004".17
to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein.

Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the
light of the provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which
explicitly provides for the suppletory application of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) and, accordingly, the provision on "conspiracy"
under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No.
9262; that Steven and respondents had community of design and
With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy under
Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262
because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall
be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of the
RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be
applied suppletorily.

purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial
support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the
family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally,
mentally and physically; that respondents should be included as
indispensable or necessary parties for complete resolution of the
Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262.
For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal
design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators,
and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.23

case.
It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly
On the other hand, respondents submit that they are not covered recognizes that the acts of violence against women and their
by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3 thereof explicitly provides that children may be committed by an offender through another, thus:

the offender should be related to the victim only by marriage, a SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The
former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship; that allegations crime of violence against women and their children is committed
on the conspiracy of respondents require a factual determination through any of the following acts:

which cannot be done by this Court in a petition for review; that x x x

respondents cannot be characterized as indispensable or (h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct,
necessary parties, since their presence in the case is not only personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial
unnecessary but altogether illegal, considering the non-inclusion of emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This
in-laws as offenders under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262.
shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:

The Court rules in favor of the petitioner.

(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''[v]iolence against women and places;

their children'' as "any act or a series of acts committed by any (2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the
person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman or her child;

woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating (3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her woman or her child against her/his will;

child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family

(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting
abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and

psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including

(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; x x x.
threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or
(Emphasis supplied)

arbitrary deprivation of liberty."

In addition, the protection order that may be issued for the

While the said provision provides that the offender be related or
purpose of preventing further acts of violence against the woman
connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual
or her child may include

or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the

principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
individuals other than the offending husband, thus:

Page 18 of 19
SEC. 8. Protection Orders. – x x x The protection orders that may
be issued under this Act shall include any, some or all of the
following reliefs:

(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or

committing, personally or  through another, any of the acts
mentioned in Section 5 of this Act; 1avvphi1.net

(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying,

telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the
petitioner, directly or indirectly; x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal construction of

the law, thus:

SEC. 4.  Construction. - This Act shall be  liberally construed  to

promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against
women and their children. (Emphasis supplied)

It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law24 and that
this intent must be effectuated by the courts. In the present case,
the express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the
legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the
attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent,
meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of
violence against women and children.

Thus, contrary to the RTC's pronouncement, the maxim "expressio

unios est exclusio alterius" finds no application here. It must be
remembered that this maxim is only an "ancillary rule of statutory
construction." It is not of universal application. Neither is it
conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering
legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.
25

The Court notes that petitioner unnecessarily argues at great

length on the attendance of circumstances evidencing the
conspiracy or connivance of Steven and respondents to cause
verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her. However,
conspiracy is an evidentiary matter which should be threshed out
in a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in the
present petition since this Court is not a trier of facts.26  It is thus
premature for petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this
controversy is centered only on the determination of whether
respondents may be included in a petition under R.A. No. 9262.
The presence or absence of conspiracy can be best passed upon
after a trial on the merits.

Considering the Court's ruling that the principle of conspiracy may

be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262, the Court will no longer
delve on whether respondents may be considered indispensable
or necessary parties. To do so would be an exercise in superfluity.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is  GRANTED. The assailed

Resolutions dated March 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No.
Q-05-54536 are hereby  PARTLY  REVERSED and SET
ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition against respondents
is concerned.

SO ORDERED.

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ


Associate Justice

Page 19 of 19